Sitting of 12 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY (HUNTERSTONORE TERMINAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Huntlyburn Hospital
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to announce financial approval for the Huntlyburn Hospital as proposed by the South East Regional Hospital Board.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend has decided that the Huntlyburn Hospital should be built as a single phase project and he has authorised a start to building as quickly as planning can be completed. After a full examination of the proposal to use the plans of Dumfries District General Hospital at Huntlyburn, we have reached the conclusion that alterations to the plans for technical and functional reasons would have to be so extensive as to constitute a complete redesign of the hospital. There would, therefore, be little or no time saved in adopting them, and the new plans which will be produced will meet the specific needs of the Borders and will make the best use of the site.
    Mr. Steel: That is a very encouraging announcement. Will the hon. Gentleman say when he expects a start on the actual building, and will he engage in even more crystal gazing and say when it will be finished?
    Mr. Monro: The most important point is to finish the hospital. We would expect it to be completed in about six years, which will be two or three years quicker than would be the case if it were done under the old Band III and Band V of the original programme. That is the present position. This is a great step forward and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to announce it today.

    Teachers' Organisations
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Educational Institute for Scotland and other teachers' organisations.
    Mr. Monro: I have regular contacts with the teachers' organisations, but I propose to invite the three principal organisations to meet me as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that responsible reply. Does he agree that it is imperative that he should meet the teachers' organisations as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that in the West of Scotland there is a shortage of 1,195 teachers and that the Educational Institute for Scotland has put forward a suggestion that a working party be set up immediately to deal with teachers' problems? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the answer is not in the affirmative the consequences can be very serious? Will he also take note of what has been said by the Scottish Senior Secondary Teachers Association and the Scottish Schoolmasters Association? Does he further agree that unless something drastic is done by the Government there could be a serious situation for teachers in Scotland?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter, which he raised on the Adjournment debate on Monday night. I shall listen to any topics which the teachers' organisations wish to raise with me when we meet. I shall try to arrange a meeting which is suitable to the three organisations as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman would not want to give the impression that the situation to which he has referred applies throughout Scotland. I accept that it is bad in Lanarkshire,

    389
    Glasgow and Renfrewshire, but elsewhere it is satisfactory.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend keep an open mind on the proposal for a working party or some other form of inquiry into the staffing position in Scotland? In his discussions will he take every step to avoid a strike, which could further disrupt the serious staffing problem in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. Monro: I hope that any discussions which I have will make the teachers' organisations think again about strike action. I hope it will not come to that. There is a conditions of service committee set up between the local authorities and the teaching organisations. This committee can meet at any time, and has regular meetings. I should like to consider what the teachers' organisations say to me before I make any further pronouncement.
    Mr. Ewing: When the hon. Gentleman meets the teachers' organisations will he also consider meeting the Association of Technical Teachers in order to consider its claim that all existing teachers of technical subjects should be granted the new technical teacher's diploma in education without having to sit the examinations set for those teachers? Will he give this matter serious consideration?
    Mr. Monro: I shall give consideration to it, but this is another question. There is a misunderstanding about the technical teachers. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.

    Secondary Schools (Staffing)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on staffing shortages in secondary schools in the West of Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: There are shortages in Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, but in Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire the supply position is generally satisfactory.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister accept that there is a desperately serious situation, at least in Glasgow, where almost 5,000 secondary children are receiving part-time education? Does not that call for urgent action? Will the Minister be prepared to look, first, at the question of
    390
    designated schools and, secondly, at the suggestion that children should be permitted to leave school at the age of 16? Will he do that before next July's review?
    Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend may have got exaggerated figures of the number of children receiving part-time education in Glasgow.
    Mr. Taylor: They are your figures.
    Mr. Monro: My information is that there are nine schools where part-time education is taking place, and the pupils there are losing rather less than five hours education per week. I am looking at the position of designated schools because the scheme runs out this session and I hope that a new one will be announced in good time, so that teachers are aware of the new incentives when considering which authorities to apply to for posts.
    Mr. Carmichael: May I stress this question of designated schools and payments? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Treasury about the possibility of getting money urgently for these schools? Is he aware that in the West of Scotland such a move would go a long way towards alleviating difficulties?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman, who also spoke in the Adjournment debate on Monday evening, is asking me to do the impossible. I hope to meet the teachers' associations much more quickly than it would be reasonable to expect the Treasury to give any decision on the future of the designation scheme. In any event, as it is a salaries question we have to go to the salaries committee before any pronouncements can be made.
    Mr. James Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the shortage of teachers in the secondary schools in Glasgow.
    Mr. Monro: On the basis of standards proposed in my Department's recent Report on Secondary School Staffing for attainment over the next few years, I estimate the present shortage in Glasgow at about 350 teachers.
    Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the poorer schools are those which are worst off in Glasgow? Does he accept that he cannot direct teachers? Will the hon. Gentleman do something

    391
    about teachers who have been teaching for two years in designated schools, taking home £25 a week and with a £13 a week mortgage, before they are due to take industrial action? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration for these designated schools the amount of money being saved because of the shortage of teachers?
    Mr. Monro: As I have explained earlier to hon. Gentlemen, the designation scheme is under consideration at present. It would be wrong for me to anticipate any result that might come, but I have emphasised the importance of this scheme in attracting teachers to areas where they are particularly needed. The hon. Gentleman's second point was on the issue of salaries for teachers, and that matter goes to the salaries committee next week.

    School Leaving Age (Exemption Certificates)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests he has had from parents asking that their children be granted early exemption or allowed to finish with school on their sixteenth birthday.
    Mr. Monro: Since the school leaving age was raised on 1st September 1972 I have had 14 inquiries from parents either direct or through hon. Members.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several parents have come to me complaining that their sons and daughters have been unable to take up suitable jobs because they cannot leave school at the age of 16? Does he not agree that even today many working-class families require the income of young members of the family, who must now remain at school after the age of 16? Has he noted that the Educational Institute of Scotland thinks that it is right and proper that young adolescents should leave on their sixteenth birthday? Will he come round to the institute's way of thinking?
    Mr. Monro: I must at this stage disagree with the hon. Member. I take his point that if pupils were able to leave school at the age of 16 they could possibly take up immediate employment. On the other hand, it is a greater advantage to them to complete their education. My right hon. Friend has announced that we
    392
    shall look at this, perhaps, in about a year's time, when we have evidence of the effects of the raising of the school leaving age. I would not like to close the door to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend keep an open mind on the question of applying exemptions on a regional basis, for example in Glasgow and Lanarkshire? In case there is any misunderstanding about the serious nature of the problem, will he confirm the figure he gave me two weeks ago that 6,473 secondary children in Glasgow and Lanarkshire are receiving part-time education, of whom three quarters are in Glasgow?
    Mr. Monro: I have said that we shall look at this in due course. I note what my hon. Friend says about the figures he has in his possession.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that these teacher shortage problems, although much more serious in the West of Scotland, are not confined to that area? Is he aware that even in Edinburgh there are such shortages? Is not one of the root problems the fact that teachers are low-paid workers? Is it not intolerable that a qualified teacher can take home less than £20 a week?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair. Edinburgh education authority had a surplus of 113 teachers in September. I do not think that the hon. Member has a good case for saving that there is a shortage there. Accepting that this is a matter of maldistribution, hon. Gentlemen should agree that this is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on for a long time. Since the pupil-teacher ratio in January 1969 was 16·9 to 1 and in September 1973 was 16 to 1, it seems that it was very much worse under a Labour Government.
    Mr. David Steel: To return to the Question on the Order Paper, if the Minister says that only 14 representations have been made, will he accept that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that there is now genuine and widespread concern among parents, pupils, teachers and employers about the way in which the Government are sticking to the provisions relating to the raising of the school leaving age? Is he aware that employers would prefer a steady flow of

    393
    labour on to the market at the sixteenth birthday?
    Mr. Monro: In some ways it could be said that such a move would be unfair to those who remained at school until a month or two later. The major advantage of this is that the schools can plan courses for the final year in the knowledge that pupils will remain long enough to benefit from them. It is the interests of the children about which we are concerned, not so much those of the employers.

    Oil Refinery, Grangemouth
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date planning permission was granted to expand the refining capacity of the BP oil refinery at Grangemouth.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): No planning permission has been sought or granted for such expansion.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed with that answer? Does he not realise that it means that BP has no intention of expanding its refining capacity at Grangemouth? Will he, when he next meets Sir Eric Drake, Chairman of BP, suggest that the company uses some of the money which will be received in compensation from the State of Kuwait to expand refining capacity in Scotland? If that is not possible, will he give serious consideration to an immediate decision on the applications by Chevron, Orsi and others which wish to increase refining capacity in Scotland as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Campbell: BP has indicated its general intention to expand its refinery capacity at Grangemouth in due course. The land zoned for industry is available within BP's present site at Grangemouth. Planning permission would be required from the local authority.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman not fall over himself in giving permission to build these refineries all over the place? Is he aware that in some countries, notably the United States, the authorities are now so concerned about the harm done to the environment that they are not allowing many of these things to be built? Will
    394
    he see that Scottish interests, as opposed to refinery interests, are given a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the environmental side of this picture. It is as planning Minister that I have to take what is in some cases a difficult decision whether to allow an application on a particular site.
    Mr. Millan: With North Sea oil coming, have the Government a policy dealing with the correct or adequate level of refining capacity in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: The situation, as recent weeks have shown, can change so rapidly that one's plans have to be flexible.

    Mentally Handicapped Persons (Staff Training)
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his consultations with interested bodies on the Melville Report.
    Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend is awaiting the views of the General Teaching Council on the recommendations relating to staff in junior occupational centres.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that that is a disappointing reply? Does he realise that thousands of Scottish children are being deprived of educational opportunities available to their counterparts in England and Wales? Since the Secretary of State has been sitting on this report for over nine months, is it not time that he was delivering the goods?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this is an important and valuable report. We have to have the fullest consultation. We are now in the final stage and have asked the General Teaching Council to give us its views as quickly as possible. We should welcome the Private Member's Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), which will take up two of the recommendations of the report and will be most valuable.
    Mr. Carmichael: May I press the Minister on this? Is he aware that, as I understand it, the GTC received this

    395
    report, asking for comments, only a fortnight ago? Has there not been some delay? Is he aware that there is great anxiety in the training colleges because there has been no course for teacher training since 1969 and there are no courses now because people are waiting for this report? Will he give us the Government's thinking about existing staff, because there is a great deal of worry and anxiety among them as to what their status will be when the report is accepted?
    Mr. Monro: Naturally, I should like to alleviate any worries in the minds of the staff as soon as possible, but it would be wrong to give piecemeal recommendations when early in the new year we hope to give a complete factual statement of our views on this valuable report. I know that in the last year or so the courses at Jordanhill have been discontinued, but that is an interim measure. At present the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped are discussing what courses can be introduced and we hope that some may start next session.

    Oil Companies (Continental Shelf)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in an early issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin the number of Scottish registered companies which are engaged in supplying materials to the licensees operating on the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Offshore operators use a very wide range of materials, many supplied through subcontractors, and it would be impracticable to try to identify all the many Scottish firms concerned.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the opposite side of the picture? How many jobs have been lost in Scotland because there is no United Kingdom design for a concrete production platform? Will he, with his right hon. Friend, also consider the number of jobs lost in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom because we are not building any semi-submersible drilling rigs, as are other countries?
    Mr. Campbell: British firms have put in an application for the construction of
    396
    concrete platforms, which is under inquiry in accordance with our planning procedures. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the time and energy of officials are better spent in helping firms to get business at present and in the future than in seeking to compile statistics which it would be impossible to complete.
    Mr. Ewing: On the question of generating jobs from North Sea oil, does the Secretary of State consider that this is an appropriate time for him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to push BP to expand refining capacity at Grangemouth and to state a definite date when that expansion, which has already been announced, will take place?
    Mr. Campbell: We shall keep in touch with oil companies on this matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that applications have been put in for refineries in other parts of Scotland. We also know of other projects for refineries for which planning application has not yet been put in. The whole picture has to be looked at.
    Mr. Millan: As the Government are getting from the oil companies quarterly returns of the purchase of supplies of equipment, why cannot these figures be published, and why cannot we know what proportion of that work is coming to Scotland, as many of us believe that the proportion is still far too low?
    Mr. Campbell: I am ready to consider publication of any figures of that kind, subject to questions of commercial confidence. On the other hand, I cannot try to provide complete statistics in a situation where it is impossible to do so.

    Rent Arrears
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of rent arrears owed by local authority tenants in Scotland, to the nearest available date; and what was the amount at the same date in 1972, 1971 and 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): This information is not kept centrally.
    Mr. Ewing: Do I take it that the Scottish Office has stopped collecting information on local authority housing? Is

    397
    the Minister aware that over the last few Scottish Question Times my Questions have been designed to monitor the effects of the Housing Finance Act on local authority housing in Scotland? Is he further aware that those Questions reveal that new houses are almost as short as are Tories on a Scottish Questions day, that housing queues are longer than they have been since the mid-1950s and that the debt owed in rent arrears by Scottish local authority tenants is at its highest level in the history of local authority housing in Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of his record? Does he expect to improve on it in 1974, or does he forecast that in that year it will get worse?
    Mr. Younger: The record referred to by the hon. Gentleman is not a record at all; it is a piece of splendid private enterprise invention by him. The effects of the Housing Finance Act are well seen throughout the country in the vast number of rent rebates that are being paid. It is disturbing that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of families with rent arrears. It is imporant that we should try to find out the precise reason for this. That reason cannot be the absence of rent rebate schemes. We have better and more generous rent rebate schemes than ever before, with more Government finance to help them, and that is the result of the 1972 Housing Finance Act, which it is about time the hon. Gentleman learned to appreciate.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is the Minister aware that despite the splendid assistance offered by rent rebate schemes, particularly to many poor families in Glasgow, and other towns, there is an enormous increase in the number of evictions and abscondences for non-payment of rent? Would it not help families in receipt of supplementary benefits to get a rent allowance in that form if the allowance were paid direct? This would remove a lot of hardship and would be much appreciated by the many families involved.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend's constructive suggestion. We are conducting conversations with our colleagues to see whether it is possible to arrange that. One presumes that the families who find it difficult to pay rent are either people who should be getting rent rebates and are not getting them
    398
    —and that is something to which local authorities and housing departments must give attention—or, alternatively, people with large incomes who are perfectly able to pay their rent but are not doing so.
    Mr. McElhone: Is not that a totally unsatisfactory answer? Will the Minister assure the House that he will discuss with local authorities the weekly payment of rents and discuss with electricity boards the payment of electricity accounts on a monthly basis? Would not these two schemes go a long way towards preventing families having to leave their homes, of which there were 3,000 in Glasgow last year?
    Mr. Younger: I have agreed that it is a worrying situation. What I am disputing is that it has anything directly to do with the Housing Finance Act. It is because I agree that it is a worrying situation that I have commissioned a study of the procedure for dealing with rent arrears. The results of the study, which is being undertaken by the local government operational research unit, are expected to be available in spring next year. I also intend shortly to issue advice to local authorities on measures, including improved methods of rent collection, that they can take to reduce the possibility of tenants incurring arrears. I shall be in no way backward in doing everything I can to solve this problem.
    Mrs. MacDonald: Does not the Minister agree that there is a direct relationship between the increasing number of families who are in arrears with rent and the implementation of the Housing Finance Act—as he has conceded that it is probably the families most in need of rent rebate who are paying artificially high rents?
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Lady on her first supplementary question. If families find they cannot pay their rent they are entitled to rent rebate. If people in the hon. Lady's constituency are not getting rent rebate, she can no doubt explain to them how to get it. For instance, taking a married couple with two children, if the rent is £3 a week the man has to earn over £36·50 a week before going out of rebate. No one can say that that is a low income.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister has no record

    399
    of rent arrears and yet is so worried that he has commissioned a special study of the matter? Did he make no effort to find the information in reply to the Question? Unless he has the information he will not be able to find a cure.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman can get information from his own local authority if he wishes to do so, but it would mean quite a lot of work for the local authority to collect it. The position is clear. We want to do all we can to alleviate the situation. We are doing all we can and will continue to do so. We must try to identify the correct cause and not concentrate on the imaginary causes which hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have always opposed it, would like to assign to the Housing Finance Act.

    Youth Club, Glenrothes
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the financial assistance he intends to give for the building of the Exit Youth Club in Glenrothes, Fife.
    Mr. Monro: Since the education authority has now told my right hon. Friend that it and the district council have agreed to offer grants of £18,000 and £12,000 respectively, he will be writing shortly to the authority offering the maximum grant of £25,000.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer to my letter on this subject a few weeks ago. Will he give an assurance that, contrary to what he indicated in his letter, the project will go ahead quickly within the next month?
    Mr. Monro: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The letter will confirm that the project can proceed next month.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had against public expenditure cuts in Scotland; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that every area in Scotland is suffering severe cuts in terms of expenditure on hospital
    400
    development and on the development of services for the elderly, following his circular advising authorities not to put any further work out to contract? Is the Minister aware that many people in Scotland feel that things will be held back even more? Will he give an assurance that local authorities will lift the embargo on new contracts from 1st January?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of the question is "No"; this is not a question of severe cuts in different parts of Scotland. Because of the overheating of the construction industry, it was arranged that there should be a re-phasing in the last quarter of this year. Projects will go forward in the New Year under arrangements to be made.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman, without anticipating the Government's White Paper on public expenditure, pay regard to the fact that the philosophy of public expenditure has been related to a high and sustained growth rate? Will he bear in mind the worry of many people that high and sustained public expenditure may be endangered if we move into a zero or negative growth situation? What, in the circumstances, would be the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in the Cabinet?
    Mr. Campbell: That would be breaching the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings—and I cannot answer a question concerning a hypothetical situation, although it is an interesting one. We recognised that in many areas the construction industry was not able to meet the dates which were in view, and to make sure that tenders were reasonable it was necessary to carry out a rephasing.

    Rent Rebates and Allowances
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average net rent, after rebate, paid by Edinburgh Corporation tenants in the years to 30th September 1972 and 1973 respectively; what is the total rent rebate paid out in the same years; and what is the total rent allowance paid out in the first nine months of the rent allowance scheme.
    Mr. Younger: The average weekly rebated rent was £1·34 at November 1972 and £1·12 at November 1973, the nearest

    401
    dates for which figures are available. Rebates under the corporation's rebate scheme in the year to November 1972 totalled £778,000, paid wholly from the rates. Rebates under the 1972 Housing Act scheme in the year to November 1973 amounted to £2,213,000, of which over 85 per cent. was met by Exchequer subsidy. Rent allowances amounting to nearly £100,000 were paid in the period January to November 1973.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I congratulate the Government—and I am sure the whole House will join me—on introducing the fairest piece of legislation Scotland has seen for many years, although the Labour Party is pledged to abolish it? Will the Minister do even more to publicise the benefits of this Act, particularly where the facts are still being distorted by Labour-controlled local authorities?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. I am not sure that he is correct in saying that the Labour Party is pledged to abolish the Act, because I am almost certain that in England our system of housing finance has already been adopted as part of Labour Party policy. My hon. Friend has done a great service by drawing to the House's attention the real facts about the Act. I hope that the figures will be looked at carefully by every Labour Member. They will then realise that it is a very fair piece of legislation.
    Dr. Miller: Since the Housing Finance Act has failed in its objective of getting in more money, from the Government's point of view, will the Minister take steps to repeal the Act?
    Mr. Younger: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question. As I understand the situation, the Housing Finance Act is giving to local authorities a greater level of subsidy than ever before—notably to Glasgow, the hon. Gentleman's own local authority. I am happy to rest on that achievement as the Government's contribution.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures show yet again the malicious nonsense talked by the Labour Party in its sustained propaganda campaign against this legislation? Will he say how many tenants in Clydebank will be paying less in rent as a result of the Act than they were before?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot answer that question without notice, but it may interest my hon. Friend to know that in Edinburgh 26,000 tenants are now receiving rent rebates, against the 13,190 tenants who received rebates before the Act came into operation. My hon. Friend is correct to point out that the Labour Party's view of this Act has been seen to be erroneous and out of date. The only thing that amazes me is my hon. Friend's surprise that the Labour Party behaves in that way.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much rent has been levied in Edinburgh in the year 1972–73, compared with 1971–72?
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that subject I shall be glad to answer it. The important thing for people who pay rent is to know whether or not they are having to pay more money. In Edinburgh alone at least 2,000 tenants are now paying less in rent.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Government be proud of the fact that they have increased rents to such a level that it has led so many people to apply for rent rebates and allowances? Does this not reflect the appallingly low wage levels in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot at one moment say that there are not enough rebates and then, in the next breath, say that there are too many. Local authorities are now getting a much better income for keeping houses up to standard and for improving properties, and people are paying less rent. That, surely, is a good bargain.

    Health Boards (Membership)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision not to allow employees of the National Health Service, such as nurses, to accept membership of the health boards in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the discussions with the nurses, are not the Government paying too much attention to protocol?
    Mr. Campbell: No. Several nurses have already been appointed to health boards, but not nurses employed full-time by the boards. We consider that it would be inappropriate for persons employed by a health board and working in a management relationship with one of its chief officers to serve as a member of the board.
    Mr. Millan: Is it not absurd that there should be on the new boards nurses who are not employed in the health service and that nurses employed by the boards should be excluded? The position is even more absurd when we realise that nurses serve on regional hospital boards. Surely the Secretary of State has made an error on this occasion. Why does he not reverse it?
    Mr. Campbell: This applies to other employees as well, and not simply to nurses. The point is that experienced nurses will be members of the boards, and I intend to appoint some more.

    Housing
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will convene a conference of housing authorities in Scotland for the purpose of making a joint effort to overcome the current housing problem.
    Mr. Younger: I believe that the frequent meetings which Scottish Office Ministers have with housing authorities, individually and in groups, are likely to be more fruitful than a general conference of all 234 housing authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister's reticence due to the fact that if he got these people together at a conference they would tell him the facts of life—which are that his cut-back in building in the public sector housing is causing acute social misery for thousands of Scottish families? Is it not a fact that in the three years during which he has been in charge of Scottish housing the only things, in housing terms, that have gone up have been prices, rents, mortgages and housing queues? Does he not remember that in his address to the electors of Ayr in 1966 he declared that to overcome the housing problem Scotland required a minimum of 50,000 new
    404
    houses a year? Why is he singing a different song now that he is a Minister?
    Mr. Younger: I must make clear that there has been no cut-back in public housing programmes under the Conservative Government. We have deliberately avoided any such action. Local authorities have had every possible encouragement from us to build more houses. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that the only things that have gone up are those that he listed. He should also have listed the number of housing improvements, which have risen to a sensational level compared with what they were in the earlier period—64,000 approved in the first nine months of this year—and also the record numbers of private house completions under the Conservative Government. I believe that there is no local authority which has not had every possible encouragement from the Government to carry out its building programme.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures that he has given are highly encouraging, contrary to what might be said from the Opposition benches? However, will he confirm that the average council house tenant in Scotland pays 5 per cent. of his income in rent, whereas the average council house tenant in England pays 10 per cent. of his income? Is not it time that we in Scotland recognised that we shall never get decent housing on the cheap?
    Mr. Younger: I should not like to attempt to confirm my hon. Friend's figures, though I believe them to be correct. However, my hon. Friend is quite right. People who live in council houses in Scotland want to see better quality houses in better surroundings and with better amenities. That is what we are trying to give them.

    Western Isles (Sea Transport)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for improving sea transport to the Western Isles.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since I announced a policy for the improvement of shipping services in the House on 18th April last year, vehicle-carrying capacity has been greatly increased. In view of

    405
    the outstanding success of the Ullapool—Stornoway link in attracting new traffic, I have just authorised capital investment for a new, larger and faster ship for this route, which will enter service for the 1975 season. Because of the healthy state of their order books, none of the Scottish shipbuilders approached could offer delivery for service before 1976 and the ship is therefore being built in Norway.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that that news will give great satisfaction and pleasure in my constituency? I congratulate him on the expeditious way that he has dealt with the replacement of the "Clansman". However, will he bear in mind the essential need for a much faster vessel, along with the other improvements which are required?
    Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. As I said, this vessel will be faster than the "Clansman".

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Scottish local authorities with regard to rate support grant proposals; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir.
    Mr. McElhone: I thank the Secretary of State for that very satisfactory reply. Does he agree that local authorities will need a substantial increase in rate support grant to meet their commitments because of the highly inflationary policies of the present Government? Does he agree also that it is economic stupidity to cut back on public expenditure when we have more than 25,000 unemployed in the Glasgow travel-to-work area? May we have an assurance that the £3 million worth of projects awaiting his signature at St. Andrew's House will be approved for Glasgow before the end of the year?
    Mr. Campbell: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he describes the Government's policy as inflationary. The Government have been carrying out a counter-inflation programme, I hope with the support of the Opposition in the objective of that policy. Unemployment in Scotland is being reduced rapidly. Negotiations with local authorities on rate support grant are in process at the moment.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend——
    Mr. McElhone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that totally unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Cheat. Disgraceful.

    Electricity Generation (Tidal and Wind Power)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent investigations he has made into the possibility of generating electricity in Scotland from either tidal or wind power; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: While every possible source which might contribute significantly to supplies of energy should clearly be examined, recent reviews suggest that these particular methods of electricity generation are not at present a practical proposition for public electricity supply. The Scottish electricity boards concur.
    Sir J. Gilmour: May I ask my right hon. Friend how recently these investigations have been made? The increase in price of energy generated from coal and oil is such that I believe that we should be well advised to reconsider alternative ways of generating power.
    Mr. Campbell: I agree that these researches have been taking place in recent years and not in recent months. The situation that we face at the moment is such that any possible new source of energy should be examined.
    Mr. David Steel: What assessment has been made of the further potential of hydro-electricity?
    Mr. Campbell: That is another matter which has been examined and which will be examined again if it seems practicable.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that both wind power and a barrage are more practicable than the Liberal proposal of a Channel dam?
    Mr. Campbell: I noted the speech by a Liberal Member——
    Mr. Dalyell: The Liberal spokesman.
    Mr. Campbell: —which I understand could have resulted in disastrous flooding of not only this country but others as well. The difficulties which have been met in considering barrages also involve serious questions of flooding and drainage.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gourlay.
    Mr. Gourlay——
    Sir J. Gilmour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of municipal houses qualifying for improvement grants, in the burghs of Buckhaven and Methil, Burntilsand, Kinghorn, and Kirkcaldy, respectively, at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Younger: Since improvement grants were introduced in 1949, grants have been approved for about 1,900, 550, 220 and 550 council houses in the four burghs, respectively.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that due to the overheating of the construction industry, which the Secretary of State admitted earlier, many local authorities will not be able to complete the improvement of their houses by June 1974 and qualify for the 75 per cent. grant? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of allowing houses approved for modernisation by June 1973 to rank for the 75 per cent. grant, even though they may not be completed by June 1974?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the problem, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that there will be an extension of the present rules beyond June 1974. I ought to point out that the scheme was originally due to finish in June 1973. It has already been extended for a full year. The hon. Gentleman may find it useful to remember that we have made arrangements so that it is not necessary for an entire scheme to be completed by June 1974. If individual houses have been completed they will be able to be considered,
    408
    and I hope that some burghs will be able to get some of these through.

    Justices of the Peace and Justices' Courts
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following his rejection of his White Paper on Justices of the Peace and Justices" Courts, Command Paper No. 5241, he will now publish a new White Paper outlining his latest proposals.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Our revised proposals on summary justice, which take the form of a strengthened sheriff court assuming responsibility for all summary criminal business, were announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) on 18th October—[Vol. 861, c. 306–7.] I do not consider that a further White Paper is necessary but any representations on the revised proposals will be carefully considered.
    Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in Scotland feel that there is a proper place for a lay element in the lower courts and that these people welcomed the original White Paper? If, as now appears, the White Paper is totally dead, before it is given a decent burial will the hon. Gentleman accept that Parliament deserves a clear statement on the Government's proposals before they are embodied in a Bill or, failing that, at least a full debate on them?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am well aware of the feelings on this matter. Last Friday I had a meeting with certain local authority representatives in order to hear their views. Two matters must be borne in mind. Our changed proposals were made after representations had been made to us on the White Paper. After further consideration, our reaction to those representations was to bring forward the new proposals. It is unfair to criticise the Government for reacting to opinions expressed to us. Secondly, the new proposals are fairly straightforward. They introduce a much greater degree of simplicity into the structure of summary criminal courts. The indications that we

    409
    have so far show that the understanding of that structure is not running into difficulties. As legislation is needed for the new courts in 1975, I think that it is best to proceed to legislation.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he cares to ask hon. Members we can readily give him plenty of evidence to show that the professional magistrate—the sheriff or sheriff substitute—is not all that reliable, not always without prejudice, and not always better than the layman? Will he see to it that we have a proper opportunity to discuss what the Government intend to propose?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views on what happens in the courts. There will be an opportunity for the House to discuss this when our proposals come forward. Obviously that will be the proper time to look at it.

    New Towns (Transfer of Powers)
    Dr. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards transferring all powers in the new towns from the development corporations to the elected representatives: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to alter the arrangements whereby the Scottish new town development corporations perform their task in co-operation with local authorities having responsibilities in the area.
    Dr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that answer will cause consternation among the new towns not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom? Does not he consider that for a new town such as East Kilbride, which has been established for 27 years and which now has a population of 75,000, the time has arrived for very serious consideration whether the functions of that town should be carried out in exactly the same way as those of other towns, not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the views which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. At present, Scottish legislation empowers my right hon. Friend to wind up a development corporation and transfer all or part of its undertaking to the local authority for the area. Although East
    410
    Kilbride will reach its target population in about two years' time, its development corporation has a continuing responsibility for the recently designated new town at Stonehouse. My right hon. Friend has not decided whether to pursue the normal course laid down by the legislation or seek an alternative course which would require further legislation. It is not intended to make a decision on this matter in the immediate future.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: May I ask my hon. Friend not to be misled by the Question on the Order Paper? As a former member of East Kilbride and Stonehouse Development Corporation, I can testify to its success and efficiency. The present organisation is well within the bounds——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not testify; he should ask a question.
    Mr. Younger: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about East Kilbride Development Corporation. I have often represented how much I admire the work that it does. There have been representations from East Kilbride Town Council and others to the effect that the development corporation's assets should be transferred to them when the new town reaches its target population. As I have said, the time is not yet right for a decision to be made about this, but I have promised that I will take full account of the views expressed.
    Dr. Miller: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Emigration
    Mr. Mac Arthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the latest emigration figures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes, sir. Net emigration from Scotland in the year to June 1973 is estimated at 10,700. This compares with 27,600 for the preceding year and is the lowest figure for any year since the war.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those figures will give the greatest satisfaction in Scotland and

    411
    elsewhere, although we all look forward to the day when there will be a net gain and not a net loss each year? Will he confirm that these are not simply the best figures since the war but the best figures for two generations? Further, will my right hon. Friend confirm that these figures reflect a growing confidence in the expanding Scottish economy? Just to round matters off, will he tell the House why hon. Members of the Opposition looked so unhappy a moment ago at hearing this good news?
    Mr. Campbell: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a significant indicator of successful policies having been carried out in Scotland. The figures compare with emigration figures of 43,000 in the years 1966 and 1967. As my hon. Friend said, these are also the best figures for a very long time.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the last thing that I want to do is to spoil the effect of this excellent Question? I have no doubt that he has taken a great deal of trouble. However, may I ask him not to be complacent? It is amazing that Scotland has any emigration, considering that it is now in the centre of the Texas of Europe. Have these figures been broken down? What is the situation regarding the Highlands and Islands?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot break them down into figures for different parts of Scotland, but net emigration overseas is estimated at 6,700, whereas the rest of the figure relates to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Millan: We very much welcome these figures, but I should like to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Is not the situation very patchy? Are not the figures, in any case, likely to deteriorate if the unemployment situation deteriorates, as it inevitably will over the next few months? Is not the worrying factor about the Scottish situation generally that increased employment opportunities are very patchy and, in particular, are not likely to affect the endemic problem of high unemployment in West-Central Scotland? Will the Secretary of State turn his attention to getting the maximum of industrial opportunities from North Sea oil, not just for Scotland generally but particularly for West-Central Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I am certainly not complacent about these figures. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced a sour note into what is very good news. He mentioned employment vacancies. That is another significant indicator, because vacancies are greater in Scotland than they have been since records have been kept. The unemployment situation in West-Central Scotland has improved over the past year to a greater extent than that of Scotland as a whole.

    Public Building
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to exempt from cuts in expenditure programmes all essential local authority work on housing, hospitals, factories, etc.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Housing is exempted from the current rephasing of public building work. I shall, as always, seek to ensure that restraints on other building are so applied that essential work is allowed to go on.
    Mr. Doig: I am very grateful for that reply. We have been scared of what has happened in the past being repeated in the near future, namely, that luxury building proceeds, using up scarce raw materials and labour in certain industries. We are grateful to note that that is unlikely to happen next year.
    Mr. Campbell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the point I have made.

    Young Chronic Sick
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are presently provided in Lanarkshire for the separate assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of young chronic sick patients; and what progress in Lanarkshire has been made in terms of Section 17 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 for the effective separation of younger from older hospital patients.
    Mr. Monro: Assessment is carried out mainly in the clinical departments of general hospitals, and there are day places in Coathill and a few beds in Broomhill and Lanfine Hospitals for assessment and rehabilitation. Beds for continuing care are available at Broomhill and Lanfine. In the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 there

    413
    were respectively 100, 97 and 88 younger chronically sick patients who, in terms of the Act, were inappropriately placed in hospital.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my information, coming from Lanarkshire, is that such facilities as are supposed to exist can scarcely be found? In view of the great concern about this problem, will the hon. Gentleman be ready to meet me and perhaps one other, to discuss what may be done in Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Monro: I am always willing to meet the hon. Gentleman on any topics concerning his constituency. The original assessment centre at Cowglen should begin construction next year at a cost of £250,000, and an extension at the Wester Moffat Hospital at Airdrie is under way at present.

    Law of the Sea Conference
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department will be separately represented at the forthcoming conference on matters connected with the sea and fishing.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The British delegation will take account of all British interests at the conference, including Scottish fisheries as well as those of the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that Scotland should be separately represented, because this conference will discuss inshore fishing, which is of far greater importance to the Scottish economy than to the British economy generally? Should not the Scottish Office be separately represented, at least in regard to the question of limits?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that we belong to the United Kingdom, and have a United Kingdom Government. I, personally, am wholly confident that Scottish interests will be properly represented, as they have been in the past. Even as recently as yesterday I had the honour, as a Scottish Minister, to open an international fishing conference to which the United Kingdom Government were hosts. I think that this symbolises the part that we in Scotland play in formulating United Kingdom fisheries policies.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland has a particular interest in salmon fishing?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I absolutely agree that, as regards not only salmon fishing but the inshore fishing industry, this conference is of particular interest to Scotland.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the Minister bear in mind that hon. Members on the Opposition benches are concerned with results rather than status? In view of the fact that the expertise on Scottish fisheries must come from Scotland, will he reconsider the reply that he has given to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that where it has been appropriate—for example, in negotiations with the Faroese and with the Danish Government about the Faroes question—Scottish departments played a very active part, as we have done in the past. I have no doubt that in this case we shall play an equally active part, if not a more active one.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  Proclamation of State of Emergency
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by MR. SPEAKER, as follows:
  The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and Her Majesty having on the thirteenth day of November, 1973 made, in pursuance thereof, a Proclamation declaring that the industrial disputes affecting persons employed in the coal mines and in the electricity supply industry did, in her opinion, constitute a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, which Proclamation does not remain in force for more than one month: and the continuance of the said industrial disputes, the present industrial dispute affecting persons employed on the railways and the reduction in oil supplies reaching Great Britain having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted such a state of emergency as aforesaid:
  Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the twelfth day of December

  415
  1973 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  Ordered,
  That Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be considered tomorrow.—[Mr. Prior.]

PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act 1920 the Proclamation made on 13th November will expire at midnight tonight together with the regulations made in pursuance of that Proclamation.
In view of the fact that there has been no resolution of the disputes affecting the coal and electricity supply industries, that there is continuing uncertainty in the supply of oil and that there is now an additional serious threat to the essentials of life of the community as a result of the dispute affecting the railways, the Government consider that it is necessary that a further Proclamation and further regulations should now be made.
With the addition of the transitional provision of Regulation 41, the regulations are in the same form as those laid before Parliament on 13th November and will come into force at midnight tonight.
The House will recall that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 enables my right hon. Friend to introduce most of the measures necessary to reduce the consumption of energy in its various forms. I apologise to the House that it has not yet been possible to amend the standard set of emergency regulations, so as to eliminate the overlap between the regulations and that Act. Nevertheless my right hon. Friend does not propose to make new use of the powers in the emergency regulations where the powers under the 1973 Act are adequate.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce tomorrow the arrangements for debating the motions on the Address and on the regulations.
As always, use of the emergency powers will be limited to measures necessary in the public interest.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: The gravity of the position with which we are confronted is neither increased nor diminished by today's announcement. I think we would all agree that the emergency is inherent in the facts. It does not arise from a prolongation of the formal state under which we have lived for the past month.
Indeed, much of our complaint about the Government's handling of the position during this period is that it has been more characterised by complacency, by confusion, sometimes by fatuous optimism, than by any real sense of emergency. The whole handling of the position must be thoroughly debated in its energy, its industrial relations and its general economic aspects, and not merely narrowly interrogated. I wish we were doing that this week. I believe it would be more appropriate to the relevance of the House of Commons. But I take it, from what has been said, that we shall do that next week. It will be better late than never. We shall then deploy our attitude to the Government's strategy and the nation's problems.
Mr. Carr: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments, and at least I can agree with him on one point. I, too, believe that it is better that we should debate these matters and, apart from anything else, my right hon. Friend's can more effectively reply in that debate to the right hon. Gentleman's charges, which I wholly reject.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Now that the Government will obviously be relying heavily on the emergency provisions which they have just announced, would it not help to sweeten industry considerably if they also announced a voluntary withdrawal of the Industrial Relations Act?
Mr. Carr: I do not think that that question arises on my statement, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with him.
Mr. Milne: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the provisions that he has outlined, and which we shall subsequently be debating, also cover the-financial implications and the financial state of the nation? Will they include provisions to the effect that tax havens, such as the Cayman Islands and other places, will be stripped of their assets

417
in order to give the country a chance to recover?
Mr. Carr: I do not think that that question arises under the emergency regulations, although no doubt the hon. Member can raise it when we have the debate.
Mr. Cormack: In view of the serious events which have taken place, will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to speak to the nation?
Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend often does that, and no doubt he will do so again.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: We are getting near to the debate which has been promised for next week.
Dr. David Owen: Can the Home Secretary give an assurance to the House, that neither the Prime Minister nor any other major Minister will make any statement or give any indication of action until a debate has taken place in this House, and that any statement will be made to this House and to no one else?
Mr. Carr: I think I must leave that matter to the proper discretion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

NATIONAL SITUATION
Dr. David Owen: I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, the work to rule on the railways, its effect on the energy crisis, the worsening economic situation and the overall state of the nation.
I submit that the matter is specific. The work to rule by 29,000 train drivers could critically interrupt the movement of coal and oil supplies. There is already a 6 per cent. voltage reduction throughout the country. That is the maximum possible reduction before power is cut off. That is the situation on top of the trade figures due to be announced tomorrow morning. Further, there will be another meeting of the National Union of Mine-workers tomorrow morning.
418
The matter is important. It is commonly accepted that Britain faces the worst crisis it has faced since 1931. The President of the CBI talked of us
"walking on the edge of a precipice"
and of
"the biggest test o£ democracy since 1940."
There is not a national newspaper that does not agree that the crisis which we face is important. It is a deep crisis and if it were to be badly handled it could threaten the very fabric of our society.
It is an urgent matter, and while the House fiddles by debating its own car park, whether it should have grass or stone on top of it. the nation burns away its dwindling energy resources and its ability to transport critical supplies. There is an urgent need for leadership and for positive proposals. I believe that they should be made in the House and discussed in the House.
The House of Commons has the right to expect to be the central forum of debate in this country. This matter should take precedence over other business. If the motion is now accepted, Mr. Speaker, under your normal ruling it will be held over for 24 hours to give the House the opportunity to assemble. That means that we would debate it tomorrow. If it were to be moved tomorrow, Thursday, it would be normal for it to be held over until Monday.
The country cannot understand how the House can continue to refuse to debate the seriousness of the situation. I believe that we should debate it on the Adjournment. I suggest that it should not be debated on a party political motion but in the spirit of trying to find concrete solutions to difficult problems.
I do not believe that the country wishes to have a General Election. The country wishes the Government not to run away from their responsibilities——
Mr. Speaker: Order. However appropriate that may be in a debate, it is not appropriate during this application.
Dr. Owen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when you make your decision you will take into account what the country thinks of Parliament. I hope that in making a decision whether there should be an urgent debate you will take the wider view, away from the usual channels and from the inter-party disputes, and consider the national interest.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly I must try to consider the national interest. I must also try to administer the Standing Orders. Without a doubt, these are important matters and they must be debated. I have to decide whether I should allow an application under Standing Order No. 9 and so provide time for a debate, or whether this is a matter which should be debated for at least one or two full days. I have a suspicion that that is what may happen. Therefore, I must say "No" to the hon Member's application.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had an important announcement from the Government regarding the continuation of the state of emergency. It took, including the time taken by hon. Members who were called, less than eight minutes to question the Minister. In view of the gravity of the situation, and as it has been clearly indicated that we shall not have a debate until next Tuesday or Wednesday, surely more time should have been allowed for hon. Members to raise important questions at this stage? The House would then have been fully aware of the circumstances prior to the debate. Further, some hon. Members may have had some concrete suggestions to make to the Government as to how to get out of the situation without a state of emergency.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a serious point. To decide how long to allow questions to continue on a statement is a matter which perplexes me a great deal. I should be much more disposed to allow questions to continue if they were not made an opportunity for debating points. If they were attempts to seek information, I should be prepared to allow questions to continue. So often when I allow questions to go on they degenerate into a debate. I rather gather that we shall have a debate next week.—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I have a suspicion and I infer from what has been said that there will be a debate next week. It will be much better to have the debate then and not today.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): It might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Government propose, in co-operation with the Opposition, that there should be a two-day debate on the economy and
420
energy policy next Tuesday and Wednesday. I would have given that information to the House tomorrow, but in view of what you, Mr. Speaker, have said about when the debate might take place, if it took place, it might be for the convenience of the House if I make the position clear now.
Mr. Speaker: When I said that I had a suspicion, that is all that it was.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that any statements which are made on this matter will be made to the House and not in some presidential pavan at Lancaster House?
Mr. Prior: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he can give the House the assurance which my hon. Friend seeks. However, he knows that at midnight tonight many new regulations will come into being. Many people will not know whether they are infringing the law. There should either be adequate advertisements in the newspapers or the Minister should make a further statement so that the people who want to be on the right side of the law are enabled to do so. The people should have the necessary information before the regulations come into effect.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. I hope that means will be found to make these matters clear.

BILL PRESENTED
  SPOUSES OF UNITED KINGDOM (EQUAL TREATMENT) BILL
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, supported by Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Ernest G. Perry, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. James Johnson presented a Bill to amend the Immigration Acts so that non-British men marrying British women shall have the same rights with respect to settlement and citizenship as non-British women marrying British men; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st February and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS (EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR WOMEN) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to provide occupational pensions to male workers on terms, including the scale of contributions, the vesting period and the date of entitlement, in any way different from those offered to female workers.
The Government issued a consultative paper in September of this year. The initial response to the paper was summarised by a Guardian article which said that there were attractive political reasons for the Government to present a consultative paper on equal rights for women. The article suggested that the Government were perhaps trying to recoup the loss of support from women who had been taken in by the "at a stroke" promise of the last General Election.
The Government have been pushed into this position by heavy pressure from hon. Members over the years. In the foreword to the paper, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says that over 52 per cent. of the population are women and that to enable them to play a full part in the life of the country, and to remove the barriers which prevent them from doing so, are the objectives of the paper. The objectives of the paper are as follows:
"to widen the range of opportunities to women; to help to remove unfair discrimination against women in such important areas as employment and training…".
Paragraph 2.5 states that the first objective——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Conversations between hon. Members are making it difficult for me to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks).
Mr. Cocks: Paragraph 2.5 says that there should be
"equal access to potential benefits"
and paragraph 2.8 says:
"the Government does not believe that it is necessary to require occupational pension schemes to provide benefits for women and men on the same basis…".
It is that which my Bill is seeking to correct. There have been a number of comments received by the Government on the
422
consultative document. The National Labour Women's Advisory Committee said:
"It is difficult to see how equal access to potential benefits is to apply if women are to be excluded from equal rights in occupational pension schemes…".
Another comment, submitted by the General and Municipal Workers' Union, states:
"We have always viewed pensions as 'deferred pay' and therefore we regard the exclusion of women from occupational schemes as being an intolerable barrier to their claim of access to all 'potental benefits'."
Neither the Social Security Act nor the Equal Pay Act requires equal treatment. They seem intent on continuing to encourage discrimination over pensions in this forthcoming legislation.
What is the female labour force to make of this? I cannot help feeling that women will be suspicious——
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Cocks: —of a Government who are prepared to remove protective legislation in the name of equality to "expose" them to equal access to potential benefits but who do not require employers to include them on an equal basis in pension schemes.
When we probe beneath the surface of the Government's new interest in equal rights, we find that instead of challenging entrenched prejudices, a major effort is being made to remove any obstacles to the short-term exploitation of female labour. Instead of accepting the long-term rights of working women, the Government seem to be accepting the discredited and outmoded idea that a woman is ultimately provided for by her husband, ignoring the position of the unmarried and of young widows, and also, by implication, supporting the excuse that has kept women's earnings at an abysmal level for so many years. They also deny and ignore the valuable contribution that women make throughout their working lives to the industrial and commercial life of the country. It is ridiculous that such women, on reaching retirement age, should have to adopt a position of dependence.

423
The country cannot have it both ways. We cannot encourage women to go into the labour force by offering treatment on an equal basis with men and then suddenly withdraw support for this principle from women when they reach the end of their working lives. This is cynical, callous, treatment that makes a mockery of equality. Either the Government are serious about social justice or they are not. If not, they should cut out this pose of being interested in women's rights.
Occupational pension schemes should offer equal access to all workers and benefits should be paid on a pro rata basis. Equal contributions should yield equal benefits. Equal rewards for equal service are esential. This will mean the equalisation of contributions and benefits, equal dates of entry to schemes, and the preservation of accrued benefits over a period when a woman may leave—perhaps to have a child. If and when she then returns to work, contributions paid in the earlier period should count towards pension. At the moment they are often lost.
The fact that women tend to live longer than men is no justification for discriminatory treatment. White collar workers tend to live longer than manual workers, but nobody has suggested that this should lead to white collar workers being discriminated against. Indeed, the reverse is usually the case, because they not only get better pensions when they retire but they live longer to enjoy them.
It should be unlawful for an employer's pension scheme to be calculated on the
424
assumption of a longer life span for women. It should be possible for both men and women, when they retire, to receive pro rata pensions based on equal contributions for equal pensions.
The Government can make a start by ensuring that public sector pensions are set on the basis of equality. In asking that such schemes be made unlawful if they practise discrimination through exclusion or unequal benefits, all that we are asking for is a consistent policy on equal rights. I ask the Government to bring this policy into their thinking and to cease to devalue the principle of equal rights by callously selective application.
The Government's attitude to the Bill will show the country how serious they are in their efforts to do something about women's rights after extremely heavy pressure from hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Cocks, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Michael English, Mr. William Rodgers, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. David Clark and Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick.

OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS (EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR WOMEN) BILL
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS (EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR WOMEN)
  Bill to make it unlawful to provide occupational pensions to male workers on terms, including the scale of contributions, the vesting period and the date of entitlement, in any way different from those offered to female workers, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th January, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SUPPLY [6TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES
  3.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,508,716,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 11, for the year ending on 31st March 1975.
  Today's debate is something of an experiment. We had a debate last autumn which was restricted to the Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order—a a similar motion stands on today's Order Paper
  That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved—
  and I think there was a very general feeling in the House that the scope of that debate was too narrowly drawn. Indeed, some of us had difficulty in keeping within the rules of order laid down by the Chair. The Procedure Committee recommended in its Third Report, published in May this year, that we should spread out the time that we devote to defence more evenly through the year.
  My intention this afternoon——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that it is the will of the House that these two items of business should be taken together.
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Gilmour: My intention this afternoon is to begin with a fairly brief account of the recent NATO meetings and one or two aspects of the Middle East crisis. I shall then say something about Northern Ireland. The second half of my speech will be a rather miscellaneous rag-bag of items. I shall not have anything to say about the Nugent Report on Defence Lands since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last Thursday said that is is hoped to arrange for a separate debate on that matter after Christmas. Nor shall I say
  426
  very much about the Royal Air Force. I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force when he winds up.
  The most dramatic development since our last defence debate in May has, of course, been the Middle East war. I should like to consider very briefly two aspects: namely, the oil crisis and the lessons that the war may hold for our future equipment programme and tactical thinking.
  The Services, like the rest of the community, are coming to grips with the shortage of oil. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will deal with this in more detail at the end of the debate. I would just like to reassure the House that we are able to carry out essential training and that this does not present an immediate problem. We have already put into effect a great number of measures designed to conserve fuel.
  There are obviously lessons to be learned from the Middle East war. Here some of the most modern equipments in the inventories of the Warsaw Pact and of NATO were used against each other under operational conditions which are much more akin to those we could expect in Europe than, for example, the conditions in Vietnam. However, it is also clear that there are very considerable differences of terrain and climate and, perhaps equally important, of the degree of training and skill possessed by the troops that operated these sophisticated equipments.
  There are those who have the clarity of vision to assimilate the lessons of the war and are ready to translate them, at a cost of many millions of pounds, into decisions on equipment. There are others —here I must include all the experts in the Ministry of Defence—who feel that the task is highly complicated and will require a great deal of painstaking effort before we begin to draw firm conclusions. It may be that as a result of the 1973 war there will be a change in military tactics or weaponry as revolutionary as the changes which followed the battles of Arianople, Crecy, Ravenna or Cambrai. But I suspect that the results will not be quite so dramatic. I assure the House that we regard the task of assessing the lessons to be learned from the recent war as of the highest importance.

  427
  I come now to NATO. The House will have read the communiqué of last week's Defence Planning Committee. I was encouraged to hear from my right hon. and noble Friend of the businesslike and friendly atmosphere which characterised this meeting. Nevertheless, the Middle East war and crisis has undoubtedly put the alliance under strain, such crises at least have the effect of galvanising the energies of NATO Ministers. We can be sure, for instance, that NATO's procedural arrangements relating to consultation, which are anyway kept under continuous review, will now have several sets of unusually sharp eyes cast over them. We must also recognise the obvious truth that common interests which bind the alliance together are much stronger and much more vital than other areas which may be potentially divisive.
  In preparing for today's debate I subjected myself to re-reading the speech I made in May. I said then:
  "The maintenance of confidence is critical to NATO's well-being. The present happy situation of mutual trust did not arise by accident but by hard work, and we need to continue to work hard in the cause of confidence. This means full and meaningful consultation and frank speaking between allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 760.]
  Those words are even more valid today.
  It is worth mentioning the concern the NATO defence Ministers expressed in Brussels last week that, despite generally welcome developments in the political field, the Soviet Union and its allies have continued to increase the scale of their military programmes and to strengthen and improve their forces, and that the current military capability of the Soviet Union is well in excess of its need to defend its own territory.
  Equally—this is something which I know my right hon. and noble Friend is much concerned about—the NATO Ministers recognised the vital need to develop public understanding of these facts and of the necessity for the West to maintain a resolute defence effort.
  It would not be fitting for me today to give a detailed report of the various NATO meetings or of the Eurogroup meeting which preceded them, but there is one matter affecting relations within the alliance on which I should like to say a word. I have no need to remind the
  428
  House of the internal debate within the United States over the last year or two over the levels of United States forces in Europe or the pressures within Congress for change in the distribution of relative defence burdens within the alliance. The enactment last month of the Jackson-Nunn amendment to the United States 1974 Defence Procurement and Manpower Authorisation Bill, calling on the United States administration to reduce American forces in Europe proportionately to the extent that the United States is unable to recover the balance of payments cost of these forces, served to bring these difficulties into sharper focus.
  At the discussion in Brussels last week there was a frank recognition of the problems facing the United States administration and a desire on the part of the European partners to respond positively, although not necessarily in exactly the same way in each case. Equally, I believe there was a good understanding on the part of both our American and our European friends that Britain, which in many ways is in a similar position to the United States in maintaining substantial forces in Germany in pursuance of our treaty obligations, could not be expected to contribute towards the budgetary or balance of payments costs of United States forces in Europe.
  Various negotiations are currently in progress between East and West. The most important from the point of view of defence are the MBFR talks in Vienna. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) was right in pointing out in our last debate the lack of public interest in these talks. Undoubtedly, the issues are complicated and not easily understood, but they are of fundamental importance to the future of us all. I hope I will not be thought unduly pessimistic if I say that I believe that there are great dangers inherent in the talks as well as great opportunities. The danger arises because discussions, once started, may generate their own momentum and NATO security might be put at risk if the bargain contained in the outcome was not right.
  I do not think there are many hon. Members who are informed on these matters who would not recognise that if our relative security is to remain unimpaired, force reductions will need to be asymmetrical.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those of us who have been serving on the Committee dealing with the Biological Weapons Bill have tried to raise the question of the negotiations on chemical weapons. Will the Minister say what are the sticking points on the negotiations that are taking place between East and West?
  Mr. Gilmour: I would rather not be drawn into the details of negotiations either on MBFR or on chemical weapons, because they are extremely technical and complicated and have reached a fairly delicate stage.
  The reason why the force reductions will need to be asymmetrical is simple. The Warsaw Pact has more men, tanks and aircraft in Central Europe, and Russia has the advantage of geography, which enables it to reinforce Eastern Europe more quickly than the United States can deploy additional forces and equipment to Germany. But this is not an easy point to put across to public opinion or to Congress. However, the NATO alliance has entered these talks with a firm commitment that it is not prepared to accept any settlement which impairs security. It will be a great test of solidarity to see that that pledge is redeemed and cohesion maintained.
  The United Kingdom worked hard in this cause throughout the summer in the preparations leading up to the opening of talks on 31st October, and it is a considerable indication of the good sense and good spirit within the alliance that we entered negotiations well prepared and united. They have started in a thoroughly businesslike way. Both sides have avoided polemics and are starting to tackle issues. But we have a long way to go, and it would be foolish to believe that such complex negotiations can be easily concluded.
  I turn now to Northern Ireland. My right hon. and noble Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army and I all try to make fairly frequent visits to Northern Ireland, and I was there at the end of last week while the momentous talks were in progress at Sunningdale. I visited Army units in Belfast and also in Lurgan and Armagh, where I also saw a UDR unit. I had a chance to see units of the Royal Military Police which are
  430
  doing such a fine job in co-operation with the RUC. The border areas, where I spent some time, are where the Provisional IRA has concentrated in recent months because it has been severely weakened in the cities. Many of the incidents there have obviously been designed to catch the headlines. The security forces have taken steps to counter this development, including the closing of certain unapproved border crossings.
  Every time I go to Northern Ireland my admiration for the way in which the security forces have carried out, and are carrying out, their duties through this long vale of trouble becomes even more pronounced. When their job is not dangerous it is uncomfortable and boring, and it is often all three things together. Yet day after day, night after night, they are subjected in some areas to unremitting abuse together with more tangible tokens, and, sadly, these often come from women and children. Yet, despite this dreadful provocation, the ordinary soldier tenaciously clings to his belief that at the end of the day fundamental human decency will triumph over the evil and warped designs of terrorists who are not heroes or martyrs but simply common criminals of a particularly nasty sort.
  We must hope that the dawn of reason is now upon us. But, whether it is or not, our forces, without flinching, will continue to do all that is necessary to restore the security situation. The House may be interested to know that so far this year 1,353 persons have been arrested and charged with offences of a security nature, of whom 810 are Catholics and 543 Protestants.
  We have recently reduced the force level in Northern Ireland by two battalions, so that there are now 16 major units in the infantry rôle. I should like once again to assure the House that we watch the situation constantly and closely and that the force level will be adjusted to meet whatever operational situation should arise.
  I should not like to leave the subject of Northern Ireland without a word on behalf of the Armed Forces about my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Employment. Although he has, naturally and rightly, always looked at the problems of Ulster from the point of view of the civil population as a whole, he has throughout these desperate

  431
  times been a constant source of inspiration to the troops and a tower of strength to the GOCs and the senior officers. The close and harmonious working relationship between the civil power and the security forces, which is so essential, is in large part due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend. The Armed Forces wish his successor well and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. Dalyell: Could the Minister of State say what is the Government's attitude towards the use of CS gas and, in fact, the 10-times-stronger CR gas? What is their policy?
  Mr. Gilmour: We try to avoid using any of these gases or weapons because we follow the doctrine of minimum force. But where there is a riot and where it is likely that fierce measures would have to be used, troops may use CS gas. The use of CR gas has been authorised, in special circumstances, against terrorism when the use of gunfire would be the alternative. But it has not been used yet.
  Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers have to be consulted before CR gas is used?
  Mr. Gilmour: I do not wish to say too much about it. The guidelines are very strict. I cannot add to what I said, except to repeat that CR gas has not yet been used.
  All Defence Ministers try to find as much time as they can to get out of our offices and talk to as many units of the three Services as we can. There are two main worries that I have come across in recent months, and I dare say hon. Members have found much the same through their constituents—pay and house purchase. There can be no doubt that the pay of the Armed Forces has fallen behind comparable civilian earnings since the beginning of 1972. The Armed Forces Pay Review recommended earlier this year that the forces should get the maximum permissible increase under stage 2, and this was paid from the 1st April. The review body is now engaged in considering the next regular two-yearly review of pay due next April against the background of stage 3.
  The rapid increase in house prices has meant that many Service men have not
  432
  been able to purchase a house on leaving the Service: their savings have not kept pace. It is a matter of serious concern, and it is having an effect on the re-engagement rate, since some Service men undoubtedly feel that they have to leave in order to stand a chance of owning their own house. Others, understandably, buy a house at an early stage of their Army career as a hedge against inflation. However, this can lead to problems with officers and senior NCOs, living in the mess during the week and then going off to join their families—perhaps a very considerable distance away—at the weekend. It is disruptive of their family life, and it is also changing the way of life of Service units. Unfortunately, as usual, it is a great deal easier to outline the problem than to outline the solution. But, as I have told the House before, we are urgently considering various possibilities.
  Pay and housing are, clearly, factors which have an important influence on recruiting, though there are others which are also important.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: Before the Minister of State leaves housing, during the last debate one or two hon. Members stressed the importance of council houses. There was a half-promise that the Department would look into this seriously and strengthen the circular sent to local authorities to try to get over the problem of Service men coming out of the forces. I have had no intimation that this was done. I think the promise was that the Department would keep us in touch, but I have had nothing sent to me. Are the wheels still grinding, albeit slowly, and will this go out to the local authorities?
  Mr. Gilmour: I can confirm that the wheels are still grinding. We have had consultations with the Department of the Environment, which is ultimately responsible, to see whether a firmer circular would help the position. It is a matter for the local authorities themselves. We are certainly anxious to encourage them to do what they can for ex-Service men. While many are very good indeed already, some are not.
  We forecast earlier this year that the Services would face problems of recruitment in 1973 and, indeed, for the next few years. But things are turning out even more bleakly than we expected. The

  433
  House will be aware from the latest recruiting figures that the number of Service men entered for all three Services in the 12 months to the end of September this year was a little over 28,000 compared with nearly 44,000 in the corresponding period last year. The greatest shortfall is in the Army, where we look like recruiting only half as many soldiers as last year. So far the trained strengths of the Services have not been affected, but, obviously, we cannot afford to sustain such a rate of loss for very long.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Is there any significance in the fact that recruitment for the Army is lower? Is not this tied up considerably with what many of us raised last year on the whole question not only of housing while men are in the Services but of housing afterwards, because it probably affects the Army more than the other Services?
  Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend may well be right. As I have indicated, housing is an important matter.
  A system of voluntary recruitment such as we have, and which best suits the need of this country, obviously involves the possibility of varying success from one year to another.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State any idea how successful are the advertising campaigns carried out for the Army? Has a market survey been conducted?
  Mr. Gilmour: We are looking at this. Our belief—it cannot be a certainty—is that advertising does have a considerable effect. That is why last week we authorised an additional £400,000 advertising expenditure for recruitment. We must hope that the present situation is only a temporary setback.
  Reverting to housing, I have been concerned recently about the number of empty married quarters. Inevitably, there will always be a number of houses empty because of the need to make repairs and the short intervals between occupations. But this does not represent a real problem. There are also houses that are no longer required which we try to dispose of as quickly as possible. More difficult problems arise when an Army unit is moved overseas and there is a time lag before another unit takes
  434
  over the vacated barracks and associated married quarters.
  To take another example, we may be introducing a new aircraft into service, and this may involve a chain reaction of redeployments. In the meantime, one or more stations may have to be kept empty temporarily with the associated married quarters.
  We are looking into the possibility in this sort of situation of letting the houses temporarily to the local authorities, for example. There are problems, and the biggest is to ensure that we get the houses back again when we need them for members of the Services. We shall have to see whether we can solve that problem. Meanwhile, I am pleased to announce that we have in the last few days offered to make available the use of about 100 Army married quarters in Scotland for up to a year, to accommodate men working away from their homes on the construction of oil rigs so that they can have their families with them.
  Mr. Dalyell: Since this affects some of my constituents, I am grateful to the Minister.
  Mr. Gilmour: I am glad to hear that.
  A few weeks ago I visited Scotland myself to see the Service men who provided fire services for Glasgow during an industrial dispute. They performed the task magnificently, but it was a most worrying time for us and for Glasgow, because a major fire, or one, for example, at the top of a high building, would have presented the greatest difficulties to Service men who were not trained for such specialised tasks.
  Since we last debated defence, the so-called "cod war" off Iceland has come to an end and the frigates and RAF aircraft have been withdrawn from the waters and airspace round Iceland. Not surprisingly, the Royal Navy has been highly praised by the trawlermen and the public. Yet again the good sense, the good humour, the courage and the sheer professional skill of our forces were amply demonstrated.
  Finally, I should like to mention a change we are making in the method of deploying the Fleet. Before I do so, however, I shall just say a brief word about the maritime Harrier. I am well aware of the anxiety felt by many hon. Members

  435
  that there should now be a decision, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to announce such a decision. I believe that in the present situation the reasons for this will be well understood.
  For some time we have been concerned that meeting overseas commitments by single ship deployments has involved long and unproductive passages, expensive in ship time, for the destroyer and frigate force of the Royal Navy. This has been particularly true of commitments a long distance from the United Kingdom, such as those east of the Cape.
  Efficiency and economy of operation require that ships operate as far as possible in self-sufficient groups in which they can train together. Some commitments must continue to be met by single ship deployments, but next year, so far as is possible, the destroyer and frigate force of the Royal Navy will operate in groups of ships. As far as commitments east of the Cape are concerned, groups of five to six ships will be deployed so that one such group is present east of the Cape for up to 10 months in the year. A small permanent nucleus of ships, including frigates based on Hong Kong and Singapore, will also be maintained in the area.
  I emphasise that this is a change in method, not in policy. The new arrangements will enable us to meet our commitments east of the Cape more effectively. For most of the year there will be more than six ships east of the Cape, though for a small part of the year fewer than that. The benefits from this will not be confined to the region east of the Cape. For example, it will now be possible for us to offer a full-time contribution to NATO's proposed Standing Naval Force in the Mediterranean.
  In conclusion, I should like to say how lucky I feel I am to have been able to work so closely with the Armed Forces. Over the past year I have seen them at work in many parts of the world. I know that the Diplomatic Service will forgive me if I say that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are undoubtedly our finest ambassadors. I know that the House will join me in sending our Service men and their families our best wishes at this time of the year and our thanks for their vital contribution to our national well-being.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: The Minister divided his speech, like Caesar's Gaul, into three parts—first a short word on NATO, then Northern Ireland and then what he described as a miscellaneous rag-bag. I will seek to follow him on NATO and Northern Ireland though I do not know what justice I can do to the miscellaneous rag-bag that he galloped through.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and others of us, as my hon. Friend reminded us, have raised in trenchant terms the real problems of housing. I was amazed to hear the Minister say today that he is urgently considering the matter. It was raised as long ago as March of this year in the Estimates debates and, if I recall aright, even earlier than that.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: There are, of course, two separate points. The question which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) raised was that of trying to persuade local authorities to be more forthcoming in providing houses for the Services. The second is enabling our forces to buy their own houses. It is the second about which I was mostly talking about.
  Mr. Morris: Be that as it may—we shall study HANSARD carefully—this is an urgent problem. Only last week, I came across a constituency case showing the disparity in the attitudes of local authorities which, because of the high cost of building, cannot provide houses. This means that soldiers with perhaps tenuous connections with a locality are in great difficulty in getting on any housing list. This is a matter of the utmost importance. There are tragic cases and the Minister was right to underline the fact that this must be a major factor in re-engagement.
  Perhaps the Minister could bring forward concrete proposals. I recall the circular that we issued and I know that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of local authorities. Since he regards it as important to ensure the right level of engagement and that soldiers do not opt out, perhaps he could offer some financial assistance to local authorities which would otherwise find it impossible to build more houses than those living in their areas normally require. Whether or not the urgent consideration is only one aspect of

  437
  the problem, I hope that, by the time of the next White Paper, the Minister will have specific proposals to ameliorate the undoubted hardship faced by many Service men who want to ensure that they have somewhere to go at the end of their Service days.
  I found very odd and sad the recruitment figures that the Minister gave. My recollection, and I am sure that of the whole House, is that, when we had difficulties over recruitment, before the introduction of the military salary under my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), which did so much to correct the position, we were taunted from this Dispatch Box that the reason for the fall in recruitment was our policies. I hope that the Minister will recognise now that recruitment is not immune or isolated from the economic conditions of the country and that he will not regard it as appropriate to use that argument in future, bearing in mind his present difficulty.
  1 accept that it is highly appropriate that today we should depart from the procedure of last year, when we had a very narrow and constricted debate which perhaps is best forgotten. Today's procedure is very much better. It is in accord with some of the proposals of the Select Committee. Now that the Committee has heard evidence from many parts of the House and has reported, what will be the Governments' approach by the time the White Paper comes out? So far, we have not had any Government reaction.
  I want to deal with the undoubted crisis which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has gone through since our last debate in May. We have been told time and again that NATO is the cornerstone of American foreign policy. It was reaffirmed by Dr. Kissinger only on Monday. But to us it is more than a cornerstone—it is the whole foundation of the stability and security of this country. We participate in NATO, contribute to it and benefit from the partnership arising within it. Therefore, it is right to examine how the present situation departs from the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty, the 25th birthday of which will be celebrated on 4th April next.
  In the treaty, the members first of all reaffirmed the Charter of the United
  438
  Nations; secondly, they pledged their determination
  "…to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded "—
  it is right that we should remind ourselves of this on some occasions—
  "on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law".
  Thirdly, they sought
  "…to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area".
  Fourthly, they
  "…resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence. .".
  What we should ask now, as we have done on previous occasions, is whether the hands of the member nations are clean on the second pledge. I refer in particular to Greece.
  Where stand Her Majesty's Government on this issue? Not only is there a question of political morality and adherence to these principles, to which we are a party; there is also the question of how far in Western European defence we can depend on Greece, given the turbulence and turmoil there today.
  I understand that at Monday's meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers, the Dutch, Canadian and Norwegian Foreign Ministers all reminded their Greek counterpart of the need to return to democracy in Greece and that the continuation of the military régime there could endanger the security of NATO's southern flank. Proposals were made to examine the situation. Where stood Her Majesty's Government? What was their reaction? Did they stand on the same platform with Mr. van der Stoel, the Dutch Foreign Minister, and the Canadians and Norwegians? We should be told where the Government stand on this issue.
  Understanding the treaty as we do on this very issue of stability and well-being of the treaty area, how far has this aspect affected the consideration of the crisis of the events outside the NATO area in the last few months? There was a difference in approach to the Middle East crisis, both within Europe itself and between Europe and the United States. I do not propose in a defence debate to go into the merits of the different approaches, but we must examine the implications and the lessons to be learned about defence arrangements and the collective security of NATO.

  439
  Hard words were said and unfortunate attitudes were taken. This week, Dr. Kissinger has been trying to patch up the family quarrel. He knows—and it is right to remind him—that unless this cornerstone of his policy is sound, it will be that much more difficult for him to be adventurous in the pursuit of peace and the East-West détente. I invite the State Department spokesman, Mr. McCloskey, to read the NATO treaty, because he it was who questioned how European activities squared with European references to the indivisibility of security.
  Criticism of the fact that the quarrel took place in public has been made by The Times, but I remind it that in a democracy it is one of our greatest and most highly prized jewels that we can ventilate our differences in public. The way we do it is the price that has to be paid. If some leaders of nations behave like raucous fishwives, it is all that much more difficult for the family to live happily ever after.
  What did happen towards the end of October, and what lessons are to be learned for the defence posture of the alliance and of Europe in particular? First, the National Security Council met in Washington on the night of Wednesday, 24th October, to discuss the issue of its understanding of the departure of Soviet troops to the Middle East. Present were President Nixon himself and Dr. Kissinger. Secondly, in the early hours of Thursday, 25th October, the American Strategic Command and strategic units were alerted. Thirdly, the NATO Council was called latish on the morning of 25th October for a special session.
  I find it odd—indeed, somewhat bizarre—that as late as lunchtime on the Thursday the senior officers at NATO's Oslo headquarters were not aware that there was an alert at all. Whatever noises are made by the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary now in defence of what took place, the truth of the matter is that we were not informed in time of the American intentions. This is why we should examine, first, whether there were good reasons for the alert; secondly, how effective the machinery for consultation was; and, thirdly, whether the United States was justified in complaining about lack of European co-operation.
  440
  On the reasons for the alert, the best verdict we can return is one unfamiliar to English law but prevalent in Scotland—not proven. The Foreign Secretary himself reported on 29th October that there was no evidence that the USSR seriously considered sending troops to the Middle East. Indeed, the NATO Council leaked on Friday, 26th October, that it had no good reason for believing that the Americans should have gone so far as to have a full alert. Thirdly, Britain and, indeed, NATO, did not know or have the necessary knowledge to reach a decision whether there was cause for this degree of alert or not.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The American forces were not placed on full alert but went from stage four to stage three.
  Mr. Morris: I do not think I used the word "full". It was an alert grade three, which was referred to by the Foreign Secretary in the debate on the Loyal Address on 31st October. If I may deal with the point, as it has been raised, it is rather odd that the Foreign Secretary should tell the House that when the Americans alert their forces there is no obligation on the Americans to discuss this matter with their allies. This is odd in the extreme. The Foreign Secretary added:
  "If there had been a proposal that they be used from the United Kingdom, consultations would have had to take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October 1973; Vol. 863, c. 185.]
  I find it odd that we are first told that there can be an alert of troops within the United Kingdom without any consultation. The whole purpose of an alert is to place troops in readiness for use. One of the excuses given was that there was no time for consultation, yet if the troops had to be used there would have been, according to the Foreign Secretary's understanding, some consultation. This is bizarre in the extreme, if it is the reality of the situation, and the sooner it is remedied the better.
  Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what the situation was when he was the Minister involved in this vital sphere of defence preparation?
  Mr. Morris: It is not for me to disclose in any way such matters. With respect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman should know better. I am merely quoting from the utterances, which cannot be reconciled, of the Foreign Secretary in this House. I am suggesting to him that if he has stated the situation accurately—and I hope he has—it urgently demands a remedy.
  The need for an improvement in consultations has been set out and discussed in the deliberations of the NATO Foreign Ministers this week. I was glad to read the communiqué issued today about the Ministers' instruction to the Council to consider the most appropriate means of ensuring the full effectiveness of the consultations, which is so necessary. That is an admission that things are not as they should be and an admission of the need for reform and improvement. I hope that these will take place shortly.
  Then there are the complaints made regarding the European lack of co-operation. The international power structure today is dominated—in my view disproportionately—by the super nuclear Powers. One remembers the maxim that all power corrupts. The same is even truer when the degree of absolute power is such that the whole world could be destroyed. In this structure the United States is the dominant partner of the alliance, and Western Europe, whether it likes it or not, shelters under the American nuclear umbrella. The Middle East war has demonstrated that Europe's peacetime interests are not necessarily co-terminus with those of the United States. While Western Europe depends on the Americans, the Americans—perhaps in a different way—depend in turn on Europe. This is why NATO is the cornerstone. The American policy, and the part they play, is also the cornerstone of our policy.
  But the fact that we in Europe, through our successful arrangements in Europe, are a cornerstone of United States foreign policy should not be taken to mean that a cornerstone is a doormat for the United States. The sooner Dr. Kissinger—who is said to be "disgusted with NATO "—realises that, the better. Europe cannot be bulldozed. There is no such thing as a European view on matters which occur outside Europe. I hope that this has been realised. There is a right to disagree, and Europe will disagree on many matters
  442
  which arise outside Europe. That may be unpleasant news for the State Department, and the sooner it learns that the better.
  I find odd a statement by President Nixon in which he said:
  "Our European friends have not been as co-operative as they might have been in attempting to help us to work out the Middle East situation."
  So far as America was concerned there was no rôle for Europe in the Middle East situation. Europe was not to play a rôle. Europe was denied a rôle. The only co-operation needed was not in settling the dispute but in carrying on the fighting.
  Therefore it is right that we should examine further what happened in Britain on that occasion. We have for a long time been regarded as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the United States. We should know whether the United Kingdom accepts that American bases in Britain can be alerted and activated without the prior permission of the United Kingdom. The moment the alert takes place the degree of danger to us rises.
  That is why it is so necessary to work on and urgently to improve on what I understand is the present situation, as reported in HANSARD on 31st October. The House should be told whether we denied the use of sovereign bases in Akrotiri to the Americans when, I understand, they wanted to use them. If we were not specifically asked and there was no specific refusal was a message conveyed to the Americans, in the usual diplomatic way in which these things are done, querying whether they wanted to use the bases for this purpose, with an indication that it would be unwelcome if any such need arose? Various organs in America, for example the Wall Street Journal, have condemned Herr Brandt, President Pompidou, our Prime Minister and the whole of Europe for a lack of backbone. I find very odd Dr. Kissinger's statement in which he said:
  "For two weeks while the United States had to make significant decisions the Europeans acted as though the Alliance did not even exist."
  If that is the case, and if there were two weeks in which these decisions could be taken, the allies were treated in a curious way, without any warning being given. The trite phrase was forged in Madison Avenue for Dr. Kissinger that this was

  443
  the year of Europe. Now, almost at the end of 1973, that phrase must have turned into ashes in his mouth, when he contemplates what has happened in October. It was Lady Macbeth who said:
  "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."
  Despite the immense and welcome effort at conciliation in the past few days, one hopes that it is now fully understood by Dr. Kissinger and President Nixon that the memory of the arrogance and petulance of the last few months will not easily be eroded.
  If there is to be a partnership in Europe worthy of the name, and if we are not to be obliged to take instant American diplomacy unquestioningly, there is a need to recognise these lessons, act upon them and do business accordingly. I was glad this week to read Dr. Kissinger's statement in which he recognised that there was no incompatibility between Europe having its own identity and continuing the transatlantic unity. What is odd is that such a statement had to be made at all or that this had been in question. What is odd is that the State Department did not realise the difference in identity and our wish, from time to time within Europe, to act differently. It is against that background that I hope that the present arrangements in NATO can be translated into effective machinery which will avoid the embarrassment of the past few months.
  It has been asked in the NATO Council this week just how much can the alliance be transformed from a purely defensive arrangement into a piece of diplomatic machinery. We very much hope that we can play a significant rôle in the Vienna talks. We attach importance to the European Security Conference. I know of the immense amount of work that has gone into preparing for these talks. Great difficulties will arise, bringing with them a need for much patience if the talks are to meet with some degree of success.
  What is important is that we should play a part and be able to decrease the tension by some practical measures within Europe, particularly Central Europe, at the same time maintaining the security of this country. If the United States wishes Europe to play an important part, I wonder why we should be so excluded
  444
  in the next stages of the Salt talks. Now that we are getting away from the stratosphere and nearer to the ground, why should Europe and other countries be excluded from bilateral and secret talks? Europe is left to guess at what bargains are being struck.
  One impression which has been conveyed is that the Vienna talks are something to do with the reduction of Warsaw Pact and American troops. I hope that that is a wrong impression and that the beneficiaries of these talks will also include ourselves and other European countries. It has been cynically asked whether the talks are a means of balancing a reduction of Warsaw Pact and NATO troops in Central Europe or merely a formula for pre-empting the unilateral reduction of American forces in Europe. Despite what Mr. Schlesinger said recently, we all know that pressure for the reduction of American troops in Europe is increasing month by month in the United States. Senators and Congressmen to whom one talks are quite frank in their approach and tell us that this is the reality of the situation in the United States. What we must ensure is that any such reductions are part of the whole arrangement arrived at in Vienna, involving the whole of Europe.
  I hope that we shall benefit from a limitation of defence expenditure. Ours is wholly out of line with other western European countries. Our aim should be to bring it into line. This is the time when next year's defence budget is being considered. In comparing our defence expenditure with that of other countries we should ask whether we are comparing like with like. Are the same factors fed in? It has been estimated that provision of married quarters, education and medical services costs something in excess of £250 million in one year. It is important that the comparison should be correct and that our defence budget should carry only its correct proportion of the burden.
  Mr. Churchill: While I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Member's latter point, may I put it to him that it is absurd that we should judge our defence expenditure by comparing it with that of our allies? Surely that is an irrelevance. It is more appropriate to judge it by the defence expenditure of potential aggressors.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will remember that our American allies argue that their burden of defence expenditure is in excess of that carried by other European countries. We can argue that our burden vis-à-vis our European partners should not be excessive.
  When I was in the Ministry of Transport I chaired an inquiry into the financing of British Rail. The aim was to examine whether the service was carrying the right burden of expenditure on things such as pensions, museums, railway crossings, and so on, and to analyse the performance of British Rail. It was from that exercise, which I think I can describe as being highly successful, without being unduly modest, that there emerged much of the Transport Act 1968. That is the sort of basis on which I would like us to consider our correct defence budget.
  We live in an era of economic adversity. No one would deny that, except perhaps the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who sees a crock of gold at the end of every rainbow. We believe that we must cut our coat according to our cloth. When we preached that philosophy in Government we were derided by the then Opposition. It was strange that in one of his first speeches the present Secretary of State for Defence accepted that philosophy.
  In the last two months we have seen a number of kites being flown about projects in their early stages which might be axed. Are we to be told what is being considered in the defence review, which forms part of the review of public expenditure generally? I find it odd that the Minister was not able to reach a decision about the Navy Harriers. That has been shelved. I know of the rage there was m the Admiralty in July because the admirals failed to get their way. There are a number of such projects being canvassed in the national daily newspapers as being either at risk or in danger of being pushed to one side. The House and the Services should be told what these are. If there are to be cuts in public expenditure then defence must carry its proper share.
  I turn now to the sad news we had a few days ago which came with the disclosure—without a word to the House—that the seven Westland Wasp helicopters
  446
  were beginning to be delivered to South Africa. The last we heard of these matters was as far back as 22nd February 1971 when we were told that the Westland production line had been closed down. We all recall the traumatic experiences of the Foreign Secretary and the Government following their instant reaction in June and July 1970. Now we hear that three have been sent, without a word to the House, ready to take part in CAPEX, the joint British and South African naval exercise. I am told that it is a new exercise which is to be biennial.
  We thought that the Government had learned their lesson. They nearly wrecked the Commonwealth Conference in 1971. Dependent as we are on Nigeria, among other countries, for oil, is this the time to throw this issue in Nigeria's face? Has there been consultation with Nigeria? If so, what reactions have there been in that country? Will the Government never learn? Whatever price they have to pay, they stubbornly continue with policies that have been condemned as outrageous by the Commonwealth and, indeed, by the world.
  I endorse the congratulations that have been extended to our troops in Northern Ireland. Their gallantry and patience has been unparalleled. When I heard in the House on Monday the congratulations to individuals concerned in the Sunningdale talks, my mind went out to our troops who by their unenviable daily tasks have laid the foundation which has enabled the politicians to have time to reach a measure of agreement.
  More than 200 of our men have paid the supreme price. Others have been injured. We have made arrangements for pensions to assist the families of those men who served so bravely in Northern Ireland. We send them our best wishes.
  I hope that the Minister will recall the request I made in our last defence debate for a proper appraisal to be included in the next White Paper of the effects of service in Northern Ireland upon our Army and defences in Germany. When the cavalry and the armoured regiments are sent to serve in Northern Ireland they have to wrap up their tanks and prepare for service in Northern Ireland, and it is the best part of a year if not more before they return to their normal duties. That is probably why the cavalry regiments are not called upon so frequently

  447
  as are other units to serve in Northern Ireland.
  So far as security considerations allow, I hope that the Minister in his statement and in the White Paper will tell us as much as he can about the effect on our defences of service in Northern Ireland, especially when our troops are called upon to serve there for such long periods.
  I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our good wishes to all our troops wherever they serve, in particular to those who carry this enormous burden in Northern Ireland.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) began by saying that the NATO, the alliance, was vital to the security and safety of both Europe and the United States. That is easy enough to say. So far, so good. As a generalised view, it would, I think, have the support of the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I cannot follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures on some members of the alliance. It is true that some of them are not as we are and that that to a degree weakens the cohesion of the alliance, but to expel them from NATO, which is the implication of his rebuke, would weaken that alliance still further. I will concentrate on the relationship between Europe and the United States, with special reference to the NATO Council meeting that is being held at the moment in Brussels.
  Europe is in search of a foreign policy. A foreign policy must imply, sooner or later, a defence policy held in common. A defence policy for Europe can be formulated only in the context of European-American relations. Somewhat ironically, 1973 was declared by the Americans to be "The Year of Europe". Nixon—a wounded President—was to have visited Europe. The last time an American President visited Europe was a decade ago, in 1963. In that intervening period how have our perceptions of each other changed?
  Europe sees America as a "rogue elephant" in the forest wounded after a reckless adventure in the Far East. We see America less and less available for the process of leadership. On the other
  448
  hand, America sees Europe as divided, surprisingly rich and exceedingly selfish—hardly a good augury for success.
  Mr. Fred Peart: The American President was here three or four years ago, not a decade ago.
  Mr. Critchley: I apologise to the House for that error. I am making the general point that had Nixon arrived this year there is a comparison to be made between his visit and that of Jack Kennedy in 1963. I know that the visit of President Johnson intervened——
  Mr. Peart: As Leader of the House I entertained President Nixon at that period. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. Critchley: The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is being a little less than fair. The whole purpose of Nixon's visit in 1973 was to visit not only this country but to make a grand tour of the alliance within Europe, which is what Jack Kennedy did in 1963. Perhaps I may be allowed cautiously to make the comparisons between 1963 and 1973 in the perceptions that the Europeans have of America and the Americans have of Europe.
  A decade ago a confident United States saw France under de Gaulle calling for the Europe of the Nation States, a Europe strong enough to be able to challenge the super-Powers. America saw Germany a decade ago economically strong but hesitant, still with the marks of the self-inflicted moral wounds of the Second World War, but none the less anchored securely to American policy.
  America saw England, under the leadership of Harold Macmillan—her most successful Prime Minister since the war—an England that had abandoned the Empire and was in the process of winding up the "special relationship" with the United States, an England hell-bent, to use the word of the present Leader of the Opposition, on entry into Europe. A decade ago America was a country in surplus, suffering from no obvious moral or financial crisis, optimistic, sure in her strength.
  In 1973 the Europe of the Six has become the Europe of the Nine. The accession of the United Kingdom to the EEC has changed Europe from a collection of satellites of the United States into

  449
  the largest economic rival of the United States. France no longer speaks with her old authority, and the expulsion of Debré from the French Government has signalled the real possibility of new forms of defence co-operation between Britain and France. Germany, by its diplomacy over the decade, has conferred international recognition upon the post-war frontiers of Europe.
  In his April speech Dr. Kissinger not only alarmed Europe by his rhetoric—in particular by linking economics with security—but he also asserted
  "The United States has world-wide interests and responsibilities …the Europeans have only regional interests."
  While this is true in part with regard to security interests, it is untrue with regard to economics; and it is with security that I wish to deal. It was the existence of a separate European regional interest that was the root cause of the complaints and squabbling between the alliance as a result of the Middle East war.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is a distinguished member of the Western European Union Assembly. He mentioned Mr. Debré. It is true that Mr. Debré argued about France playing its part purely as a national power in Europe, but the hon. Gentleman was at the assembly only recently when Mr. Jobert, the French Foreign Minister, endorsed exactly what Mr. Debré said. Why does the hon. Gentleman take such an optimistic view?
  Mr. Critchley: The right hon. Member for Workington interrupted Mr. Jobert in the middle of his speech, but he could not have listened to that speech with care. Mr. Jobert said that he felt that WEU might become the fulorum through which the defence identity of Europe might emerge. Mr. Debré said no such thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene again?
  Mr. Peart: I merely asked Mr. Jobert why if France was interested in the defence of Europe she did not join NATO. If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what Mr. Jobert said, he will see that he took Mr. Debré's view.
  Mr. Critchley: I do not want to go over the answer I have already given to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am saying that there is now a distinct difference
  450
  in French foreign policy, and it is interesting and discernible. It may not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman or I would like but there is a difference.
  European foreign policy has already evolved in part through the need to coordinate allied policies for the CSCE and the MBFR, and in part in response to Europe's lack of oil. If American force reductions are inevitable, and also German force reductions, then a similar compulsion must oblige Europe to harmonise its policies on defence. Fewer troops will force us to seek new strategies for the defence of Europe.
  But what of Henry Kissinger? It is good to have a Secretary of State who has not only heard of Metternich but has also written a book about him. He has a remorseless sense of humour of which I should like to give an example. He was recently asked at a Press conference by an earnest newspaperman from Newsweek why he was seen so often in the company of glamorous girls such as Jill St. John. He replied "If you spent a good deal of time negotiating with Golda Meir, would you take Indira Gandhi to dinner?" Anybody who could make a crack like that cannot be all bad.
  United States diplomats have always been inclined to hector their allies, and Dr. Kissinger lectures them as well. There have been times when he has treated his allies as though they were in the "C" stream of his international relations classes at Harvard. What the alliance has to decide is whether it is to be of a regional nature or a world-wide alliance. If we examine the Middle East crisis, it is clear that on both sides there has been a degree of bad management. Dr. Kissinger failed to inform and consult his allies, but Europe expects too much since we have no unity in political terms and have made no progress whatever in seeking to find an institutional framework for our defence and foreign policies.
  There are four lessons to be learned from the Middle East crisis. First, it was inexcusable for the alliance to be caught napping; secondly, the interests of the alliance cannot always be identical; thirdly, the United States-Europe alliance is essential to the security and survival of Europe; and fourthly, since the United States position both morally and politically has been weakened by

  451
  recent events—not least by Watergate—she needs to be reminded that she needs the support of Europe as much as Europe needs the protection of the United States.
  To return briefly to the defence of Europe, our problem is that we shall have to hold the line with fewer men. The present strategy involving a linear defence, with few reserves and American nuclear weapons, must be replaced by a system of defence in depth in Germany with fortifications, and a force of militia in reserve perhaps on the Swiss pattern, together with many more and improved defensive weapons such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. A smaller number of American forces should be included as proof of America's interest in the security of her major ally.
  Clearly Europe must re-evaluate her own defence positions. What sort of institution should she seek? She may choose a newer, looser form of a European defence community of a non-nuclear character but without the integration proposed in the 1950s. On the other hand she may prefer a defence committee combined with a European nuclear committee, as I advocated last month in Paris at the Western European Union Assembly. United States nuclear assistance on equal terms to both Britain and France would be a means not of weakening but of strengthening the alliance. But whatever its shape may be, the conventional defence of central Europe should become a mainly European responsibility.
  After a decade we see that the American hegemony over Europe has diminished, yet Europe still remains humiliatingly dependent upon America for her defence. Europe has a gross 'national product larger than that of Russia and larger than that of China and Japan combined. We enjoy a respectable rate of growth. Europe is responsible for 40 per cent. of the world's trade. She can rival the economy of the United States. But Europe needs allies. The task of her statesmen is to change the nature of her relationship with America in order to preserve a permanent American interest in her security and survival.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: The disciplinary legislation which we are nominally debating today represents a distinct move forward in co-operation
  452
  among the Services and is a great memorial to Gerry Reynolds' work on this subject. When he started on this task it was thought to be a most difficult one, full of Service rivalries, but he persisted with it and we now take it for granted that there is much greater unification among the Services.
  My theme today is that one of the areas in which there has not been sufficient movement in the Ministry of Defence is in the continuing co-operation among the Services in terms of economies. These are matters on which the Defence Subcommittee of the Expenditure Committee is trying to get more action. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) will have the opportunity to elaborate this point a little later and to some extent perhaps I have anticipated his remarks. However, this theme has lost much of its momentum in the last two or three years.
  One large area in which there could be some savings—I do not say that they would be dramatic, but they would be worth while—is in training matters. If the House looks at the expenditure on training as set out in the White Paper, hon. Members will see that £348 million is spent on training, which is not so very different from the figure for the whole of BAOR. In fact our expenditure on BAOR is much the same as our expenditure on training and the number of people involved in training is actually greater than the number of personnel in BAOR.
  To the layman there seem a great many areas in training where anomalies exist. Only a few days ago the Defence Committee was discussing the Jarrett Report, and there are a number of small areas there where the Jarrett Committee has made recommendations about common training for some medical branches of the Services. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give some indication of the progress being made.
  These are relatively small areas, but what is striking is that they appear to the layman to be matters to which attention should have been given years ago. Perhaps some of us on the Opposition benches are disappointed that we never came upon them and attended to them ourselves when we were in Government. It is because these small matters have remained unattended to that I draw attention to a number of larger ones where there could

  453
  be substantial savings in the cost of military training.
  I make no criticism of the quality of training in the Services. In many ways military training, especially in technical subjects, is superior to civil training. In putting forward my argument I do not suggest any diminution in standards. However it ought to be possible to do what is already being done and to have one Service take on training for the other two. In that way economies may follow with no effect on efficiency.
  I take as an example training in catering or victualling. It is ridiculous that the three Services should have three sets of training. Food does not taste so very different whether it is eaten in a ship or on an RAF station, and catering operations in the field are not dissimilar. Whatever slight essential differences in techniques there may be could be taught, after the basic training, in a few days in the ship or at the field kitchen.
  I take as another example the training of physical training instructors. The Services are excellent at it. But there is no reason why one Service should not do the training for all three. There are also a number of examples in engineering, in armaments and in gunnery.
  If the Ministry of Defence applied its mind to this general problem and if Ministers brought pressure to bear on the Services, considerable results could be achieved. I suggest the appointment of an Under-Secretary and a senior officer from each of the Services—a major-general, an air vice-marshal and an admiral—devoted to this task. With the backing of Ministers, their task could be to comb the Services to see where one Service might train for the other two.
  Far too much difficulty is made about co-operation. If we had a high-powered, detached committee backed by Ministers looking into these matters a great many results could flow from it. The Jarrett Committee has acted in this way in medical matters. It needs to be applied across the board.
  Where agency services exist—for example, in education overseas where the Service with the most schools and the greatest number of personnel provides education for the other Services—this works very well, and it could work on a
  454
  greater scale throughout the Ministry of Defence.
  The same emphasis on co-operation is needed in NATO. Again Ministers should apply their minds much more vigorously to getting practical co-operation in armaments procurement, on exercises and even in rehearsing for crises. I know that Ministers are burdened with their day-to-day problems and do not have a great deal of time for new thinking about these matters. But in the Ministry of Defence and in NATO there should be much more ministerial direction towards getting cooperation at the nuts and bolts level. I know that a small team in the Ministry of Defence is working on common equipment standards and a common equipment vocabulary. Is it making reasonable progress? It is absurd that a squadron of the RAF should not be able to operate from many NATO airfields because the nuts and bolts do not fit. It is in a way an insult to the human race and to the democratic idea that this should be so.
  I know that the matter is complicated, but I am sure that if there is enough application to the problem—and it is more a matter of application than anything else—solutions will be found.
  When one moves from small but important matters like nuts and bolts, taps and pipes, and ammunition to the matters which WEU has been studying in a fairly detailed way for some years, there are a number of fundamental problems involving the economies of the countries concerned. I have in mind our efforts to get a common NATO battle tank. The moment is appropriate for putting pressure on NATO to make it a NATO effort. At the moment the Ministry of Defence is considering ideas on the shape of the main battle tank. But I am sure that many of us are not satisfied that in making this study enough effort is being put into getting co-operation from other European countries. The French, who are extremely awkward over NATO, can be persuaded to co-operate in joint arms production. Here is an area in which there is a reasonable chance of getting co-operation from the French.
  So often the problem is not studied from all aspects. It is, for example, unreasonable to expect one country to make considerable sacrifices in terms of its factories and working people liable to be made redundant purely to get the most

  455
  economic and militarily effective weapon. Social conditions have to be considered. The Common Market and the Council of Europe constantly refer to this kind of problem. One issue which should be put into the scheme of things in discussions about common procurement is a scheme of compensation for factory workers who lose their jobs because a common weapon is evolved and millions of pounds are saved to the total NATO budget. Some of it should go back to those who lose jobs.
  A great deal of criticism has been made of the attitude of the Americans. In trying to get common procurement and common weapons in NATO, the Americans at the moment are showing the worst possible attitude. It is not very helpful towards NATO co-operation to bring pressure to bear on Europe to buy American equipment. I hope that the Foreign Office will at least reason with the Americans and underline some of the pitfalls that there are in forcing European countries purely for financial reasons to buy American equipment. In the United States in March of this year I was very disappointed when we had discussions about the evolution of a common NATO battle tank and it became clear that the Americans intended to go their own way.
  At home, domestically, where we have much more control, we can make economies and even improve efficiency by a much greater attempt to get one Service doing certain training for the other Services. This must come from ministerial pressure. It will also strengthen the alliance if our weapons and equipment are much more in common. It would not eliminate the difficulties of diplomatic situations such as those which we have been discussing, but it would certainly make a much firmer basis for co-operation and stability if far more of our equipment was in common.
  5.30 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I am sure that some hon. Members are grateful for the opportunity to debate some of the defence issues which formerly attracted our attention only in the spring, when the Defence White Paper and the Defence Votes A are before the House. I welcome the proposals of the Procedure
  456
  Committee that defence debates should be spread throughout the Session. I hope that the Expenditure Committee's Defence and External Affairs Subcommittee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, and all the papers that we have seen, can play a part in providing extra information for discussion on these occasions.
  It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). He is a very valuable member of my sub-committee. Because the matter worries my subcommittee, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about training being separated between the Services. We feel that economies could be made by training being brought together to a greater extent.
  Perhaps the most important report prepared by the sub-committee last Session was on the nuclear weapons programme. We found it impossible to produce a definitive report or to make recommendations for the future because, perhaps understandably, the Government were unable to provide, even on a classified basis, the estimated time scales and costs of the various possible successor weapon systems to Polaris which are likely to become available. We tried to assess the current effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent and to review the options open to the Government in purchasing a possible future system.
  That report was published in August. Judging by the enormous Press conference that we had and all the comments in the Press, it caused a great deal of interest. Even I was asked to go on television and to speak about it. It seems that a decision will need to be taken by 1977, when the long re-fits and, therefore, possible conversion of the Polaris boats could begin. We felt—unanimously, I think—that the penetration ability of the present Polaris fleet and missiles, even limited to the current number of four boats, was adequate provided that measures were taken to lessen the future vulnerability of the boats to antisubmarine warfare.
  The sub-committee was surprised to learn that no estimates of the cost of possible successor systems to Polaris, such as Poseidon, ULMS 1 and Trident, were available. From our visit earlier this

  457
  year to the United States we know that the cost of these systems is great compared with what we spent on Polaris and that these systems would make heavy demands on our defence budget.
  Polaris was and still is an extremely cheap deterrent, for which we owe so much to our American allies. A conversion programme of the Polaris boats to carry Poseidon missiles, without purchasing any missiles, is likely to cost more than the total capital cost to us of Polaris. As the range and penetration ability of Poseidon is only marginally superior to that of Polaris, we did not consider such a cost to be worth while. The subcommittee also fear that to convert to Poseidon might be so expensive as to prevent Britain leapfrogging and buying a later missile system. The most expensive Trident system, already estimated by the United States as costing £560 million per boat, has just been given the go-ahead by the United States Congress. I was surprised when I heard of this decision, because when we were in the United States last March there was considerable opposition to this great cost.
  We consider that Polaris is a very cost-effective deterrent. The experiences of the French, still without an effective underwater deterrent after great expenditure, indicate the price of going it alone. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit the nuclear installation at Apt last spring. I felt that a static nuclear deterrent site is far less effective, and would prove so, than a boat. I hope that if the Government consider it necessary to supersede Polaris they will put before the subcommittee the costs of the various options open to Britain.
  We got much valuable information during our visit to Ottawa and Washington. We were much impressed by the quality and quantity of the information available to all members of Congress. Defence matters are more openly discussed in Washington than they are in London. The Congress committees concerned with defence have greater access to information and greater freedom to publish the information which they receive. The most important material published includes the unit costs of ships, aircraft, weapons and equipment, and changes in those costs. In a report following our visit we recommended that the Secretary of State should continue to supply our sub-committee with classified material and particularly
  458
  unit costs of major procurement programmes. We have very good relations with the Department, and we hope that we shall not be disappointed on this score.
  Mr. Dalyell: As an example of precisely what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying about the publication of costs, would it not be a good thing, when the cost, for example, of a through-deck cruiser goes up, in British terms, from £110 million to £120 million, as it has done, that this sort of information should be given to the House? If the Americans do it, why should not we give the costs of through-deck cruisers?
  Sir H. Harrison: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall be mentioning that matter shortly.
  More important from the point of view of Members of Parliament was our recommendation in the same report that the Defence White Paper should include more information about policy and strategic matters, as well as costs, in addition to the largely rather backward-looking matter which is currently published. I recall that when I first became a Member of the House, thick volumes for each Service were published. In those days interest in defence matters was so great that debates often continued all night. Now it is a rather slim paper that is presented. For the ordinary Member who wishes to study these matters in some depth, it is by no means as useful as it could be.
  We requested from the Ministry of Defence comments on the practice of the United States Government of publishing considerable detail of the costs and performance of individual weapon systems. We were informed that whereas the deterrent value of the United States' abundance of weapon systems was increased by disclosure, the weaknesses as well as the strengths of our much smaller British efforts might be revealed if as much information were published about our armaments. Even if we accept this constraint, we do not accept that the White Paper is wholly adequate.
  The White Paper should be the basis of the main defence debate of the year, and should provide all Members of Parliament with the information necessary for an informed debate on the Defence Estimates. We should like to

  459
  see a clear statement of defence policy in the White Paper, with the costs of weapon systems demanded by that policy and the expenditure committed in future years to those projects. Until more financial detail is disclosed, the House will not be in a position to judge the wisdom or otherwise of these commitments. We should also like to see included in the White Paper some comparison with the expenditure of our allies, an assessment of the threats which Britain might face, and the strategic balances of manpower and armaments.
  In view of the lack of published material on which the House can make its own assessments of procurement policies, my sub-committee is currently investigating several high-cost projects from each of the Services. We have received papers on the Royal Navy's new through-deck carriers and their armaments, on the multi-rôle combat aircraft which we saw earlier this year in its building stage at Munich, on the future main battle tank and on helicopter-borne anti-tank missiles. We hope to publish unclassified versions of these papers before the next debate as we did on the nuclear deterrent, which last year stimulated a lot of interest in the main defence debate.
  Even without further expenditure on nuclear weapons, these projects will account for a very substantial part of the defence budgets in the late 1970s and 1980s, and we estimate that they will cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. From the first, the Defence Sub-Committee has been concerned that commitments for long-term projects such as these may pre-empt future resources. If we are committed to all these projects, the bulk of expenditure will fall due in the years ahead. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware of this prospect, but can he be certain that our resources will be adequate to meet these demands? By 1978, the Government of the day may well be faced with the stark alternatives of an unduly increased defence budget or the need to make arbitrary cuts.
  As regards the management of procurement projects, we were much reassured by the impact made on us in the sub-committee by the first head of the Procurement Executive, Mr. Derek
  460
  Rayner, now Sir Derek Rayner, in instituting reviews of projects every six months. I believe that the previous practice was to review them every two years. I hope my right hon. Friend can assure me that there are similar reviews of all these projects. It is important to look at major projects most vigorously in the development stage, to establish the estimated incidence of expenditure for some years ahead in the production phase, the overall effect on the defence budget as a whole and—perhaps even more important when considering whether projects should continue—to see whether, in spite of changes in the world situation, they will achieve the purpose for which they were designed.
  We hope that in future the minor cuts inflicted on the defence budget in recent months can be avoided. We recently considered the defence cuts made this year as part of the Chancellor's package of 21st May, and the more recent economies announced with phase 3. The Government's policy seems to be to make small cuts, mainly by way of deferments, on many projects. This policy seems likely to lead to higher costs in the long run and may be an illusion if some of those cuts are really shortfalls in expenditure which would have occurred anyway. Moreover, the Ministry is still unable to say where all the cuts will fall and £10 million-worth of cuts, although approved, are not yet allocated. May I suggest that it is sometimes wiser to cut out a whole project, than to tinker a little with a great many?
  Another problem arises in considering procurement objectives. How effective will these weapon systems be in the 1980s? The recent unfortunate Middle East war has shown that some tried and tested weapon systems may be rendered less effective by newly developed missiles. It is too early to be certain, but there are some preliminary lessons which our planners should consider, as the Minister of State said. We do not want to take quick decisions, but in the light of the recent war we should study these lessons in estimating the demand for the MRCA and the future battle tank. Moreover, our missile systems and the means of delivery need to be closely examined to assess the best means of deployment in a battlefield situation, and consequently the number of weapons required.

  461
  The Israelis' British and American-built tanks effectively outgunned the Soviet-built tanks, so far as we can gather. I would remind the House that the British Centurion tank used by Israel has been superseded in our own British forces by the more effective Chieftain. But even the most advanced tank may be increasingly vulnerable to anti-tank missiles, and indeed in the fighting many tanks were lost through hits by relatively unsophisticated Russian anti-tank missiles operated by the Arab forces.
  The anti-tank missile has thus made its first real mark on the battlefield, and the infantry—of which I was a member during the last war—clearly has a weapon which is effective against the heaviest tank, at both short and long ranges. That does not mean that the day of the tank has ended. These missiles are defensive weapons, and tanks are still needed for offensive operations. But the balance has swung against the tank, which has dominated the battlefield for many years. What may be needed now is a mixture of missiles and tanks, possibly with some missiles mounted on tanks, according to tactical requirements. The conflict may have some bearing on the number of new tanks which will be required.
  In the air, I feel that the lessons are not so comforting for Western observers. Although American-built Phantoms proved superior to any Soviet-built planes, the emergence of effective ground-to-air missiles, the SAM defences, markedly reduced the effectiveness of Israel's air operations. Many planes were lost not only through direct hits from SAM 6 missiles, but also from anti-tank guns or man-portable or vehicle-mounted SAM 7 missiles, because to avoid the SAM 6 missiles the planes flew low. The balance may therefore have shifted against the fighter-bomber. Yet—and very rightly—we are pursuing an expensive development programme on the MRCA, in part to produce an aircraft of this type. The task of the fighter-bomber is now more difficult, which may suggest that in future some of its targets will have to be taken over, in the face of dense SAM defences, by surface-to-surface missiles or artillery. The introduction of precision guidance for missiles and artillery makes it more likely that such systems might cut sharply into the rôle of the fighter bomber in a European battlefield.
  462
  Helicopters were little used in the Middle East battlefields. In forward zones helicopters were easy targets and could not operate. That may have implications for the tactical handling of antitank airborne missiles carried by helicopters. It may be that vehicle-mounted or hand-held launchers may be more effective. We do not yet know the answer, but that matter must be considered. At least the inventory of armaments deployed in Europe will have to be reassessed in the light of recent experience.
  In seeking to assess the effectiveness of our defence expenditure and in reviewing the complex weapon systems needed today, account must still be taken of the quality of training and organisation of our forces. We were encouraged from recent visits to RAF Strike Command Headquarters, to RAF Wattisham and to Headquarters Eastern District Colchester by the efficiency of the headquarters and the local organisation of our services. If our costly procurement programme can be managed as effectively as our manpower, I should be more confident of value for money from our defence forces.
  I have tried to put shortly before the House the complex problems posed by defence hardware. Costs continue to increase. The Minister said that we must increase the pay of the Service personnel. That will leave us with less room overall for hardware. It is vital that all hon. Members should thoroughly understand the position facing any Government in this sphere over the next 10 years.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I followed with great interest the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Colonel Sir H. Harrison) as chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. I endorse and support his view that if hon. Members are to take a more informed part in defence debates, including the area of public expenditure which is of such massive importance, they should be supplied with information of the kind which he and his committee have been seeking so assiduously.
  I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member and his committee upon the most important work which has been

  463
  done in the face of a notable reluctance on the part of Ministers to volunteer detailed information on many projects of considerable cost. There is no doubt that there is real difficulty for the Government in determining what information can be given without jeopardising our defence effort. However, there is a widespread view in the House that the line is being drawn too restrictively and that insufficient information is being given to enable the House to exercise proper long-term control over our defence expenditure.
  First, I make a constituency point concerning the future of the naval nuclear propulsion programme which is now under discussion and upon which it is expected decisions will be reached in the next few months. The matter is of importance to my constituency because of the establishment of HMS "Vulcan" where research work is being done on nuclear propulsion for the Navy. It is hoped that a second phase will be authorised by the Government to enable that extremely valuable research establishment to continue its work not only under the current programme towards the end of the decade but in the following years. If the Minister can say anything about that matter it would be of great interest to my constituents.
  I now turn to the wider issues which are posed by the debate. I welcome the fact that the debate is being held now. In the past it has been unsatisfactory to have concentrated all our defence debates into the early spring season. There is a certain artificiality in having a season for defence debates. The timeliness of the debate is clear in the light of the developments in NATO during the past two months.
  I begin by considering the east-west issues which now confront NATO. It is too early to formulate any conclusive ideas on how useful the multilateral discussions on disarmament and European security will be. Initial debating postures have been struck both at the MBFR conference in Vienna and in the other talks. The background to the talks is somewhat sombre, although I and my hon. Friends place great hope in their coming to some fruitful conclusions.
  However, we notice the quantitative and qualitative increase in the Soviet Union's
  464
  military effort in recent months. We view with some disquiet the fact that, notwithstanding the protestations being made by the Soviet Union at the opening of the talks on mutual and balanced force reduction, it is going ahead with the perfection of its strategic nuclear weapons, improved MIRV's and, at the same time, the improvement of its tactical weaponry, especially tanks. That is a somewhat sombre backdrop to the present discussions. We view the discussions with considerable caution but not without hope.
  It is in west-west relations that there has been the most dramatic development since the outbreak of war in the Middle East. The disarray in which the Western alliance found itself in consequence of the unleashing of the fighting was deplored and regretted in a series of earlier debates. It is a matter of some satisfaction that the United States administration, and particularly Dr. Kissinger, appears to have recognised that the fault lay not only in the European members of the alliance but at least in part in the failures of the consultation procedures adequately to provide information about the intentions of the allies.
  I take it that Dr. Kissinger's opening speech in Brussels, in which he stated that the permanent representatives of the NATO Council should look urgently into ideas for a more systematic programme of consultation, amounted to something of an amende honorable, an admission that all was not happy in the alliance relationship.
  The meeting of NATO Ministers appears to have been very constructive, as was the prior meeting of the Euro-Group. I should have liked to hear more detail from the Minister of State about what was achieved at that conference. One matter was the apparent decision to reorganise Europe's air defences by the proposed merging of two commands into a single centre of command. This seems to have considerable strategic significance in that the two commands—the British and United States Commands—hitherto appear to have pursued somewhat different objectives. Whereas the United Kingdom's effort seems to have been primarily directed towards supporting ground forces, the United States effort seems to have been capable of being used in action against enemy aircraft and in

  465
  strategic actions undertaken a considerable way behind enemy lines. It would be of interest to know which philosophy is to prevail if the two commands are to be merged and under whose aegis of command the new air defence structure will lie.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more precise on that point as some hon. Members may be less well informed than he? Is he meaning a merging of the Second Allied Tactical Air Force with the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force in Germany? The Second ATAF has, of course, a Royal Air Force and, apart from the United Kingdom, includes other nationalities. It is an important point.
  Mr. Maclennan: These are the matters to which I am referring. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I posed them in an interrogative way, hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain what has happened because reports have not been very full.
  It would be of interest to know what steps have been taken at the Euro-Group meeting—I understand that some steps have been taken—to rationalise procurement policies. From the original setting up of the Euro-Group this has been one of the most hopeful developments of cooperation within the NATO alliance.
  It would also be of interest to know whether Her Majesty's Government take the view expressed by the German Minister of Defence, Herr Leber, that it is within the Euro-Group that we can best hope to build up the European identity in defence which it is recognised, not only in this country but in the United States, is not incompatible with a wider alliance and is indeed calculated to strengthen it. Alternatively, do the Government share the view of M. Jobert that WEU offers the greatest potentiality for the development of this European personality?
  It appears from some of the remarks that have been made in France that the Government at least gave the impression that they shared the French view, although subsequently there have been denials of this. It would be of interest to know just where the Government stand on what is becoming a lively debate among some of our Western European allies.
  466
  Will the Minister also tell us more about the major issue of burden sharing? I was glad that he referred to this matter and, in particular, spoke of the Jackson-Nunn amendment. It appears that although the problem is recognised by the European members of the alliance, little progress has been made in coming up with ideas on how this burden sharing requirement is to be met. It is welcome news that the Government have made it plain—I wonder whether it was made plain to the United States administration; I presume that it was—that we would not be in a position to bear the extra foreign exchange costs of United States forces in Europe.
  The communiqué from the meeting of Defence Ministers referred to the agreement that there would need to be a significant increase in the defence budget totals forecast over the next few years. What are the implications for this country? I appreciate the artificiality, and inaccuracy in some cases, of seeking to make comparisons in terms of gross national product and contributions made by member countries of the NATO Alliance to the defence burden, but is it anticipated that we shall have to bear an increased share of the NATO burden? A significant increase of that kind could scarcely be less appropriate for Britain at this time.
  I believe that there is a certain inherent contradiction in the expressed collective view of the Defence Ministers with the national policies of most member countries of NATO. It is quite striking that in the week that the communiqué is issued Herr Leber should announce proposals for a major reform of the German Army and military effort with the purpose of substantially reducing the escalation of defence costs in the Federal Republic of Germany. This is a recognition of the growing pressure within that country against limitless increases in expenditure to match the threat posed by the fear of Soviet intentions. It is also ironic that this commitment comes shortly after pressures have become more apparent in the United States for similar cuts in the financial burden.
  I was most interested in the remarks by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on this matter. He indicated

  467
  that the defence costs of NATO—I hope I do not distort what he said—were becoming insupportable and must lead to a reappraisal of NATO's basic strategies. This view is becoming almost a conventional wisdom among experts outside this House and it is perhaps surprising that not a whisper of it has percolated through in ministerial statements. There has been not the slightest indication of an intention to change course or even to recognise the pressures which plainly exist, pressures created not only by the competing demands for scarce resources of social and economic requirements, but also by the sheer difficulty of meeting our recruitment objectives. This is particularly relevant to this debate and we shall be interested to hear about the Government's forward thinking on the matter. Is there any recognition that NATO may have to adjust its strategy not purely for financial reasons, but in ways which will enable us to reduce our expenditure?
  It is most satisfactory that after the extremely fraught days of the Middle East struggle it appears that the Brussels meetings last week have restored a semblance of order into the affairs of the alliance, a semblance of trust which, frankly, had been considerably shaken by the events of October. I said in an earlier debate that we understood the strains under which Dr. Kissinger and other members of the United States administration were operating. We now feel a great deal happier over the tone of the contributions by Dr. Kissinger which appeared to recognise that Europe is developing an identity which will reflect increasingly in a common attitude towards defence questions. We are still a very long way from a common defence policy but the recognition of common interests is at least a step in the right direction.
  6.13 p.m.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I shall confine my remarks to manpower and expenditure, but I share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the alarming growth of the Soviet forces.
  468
  In a recent debate in another place my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that the target for Army recruiting this year was 26,000 but that it had been estimated that the result would be 13,000—a shortfall of 50 per cent. The other two Services are not so hard hit. The reasons for the shortfall vary from repeated tours in Northern Ireland, which are highly unpopular with mothers and wives, to the state of full employment which now exists. The problem is further aggravated by the raising of the school leaving age and the fact that 15-year-old entry, which last year formed 20 per cent. of the total entry, is now denied us. Of course, the most important reason, which has already been stressed, is that the military salary has not kept pace with civilian earnings.
  I have two minor suggestions for dealing with the problem. On Northern Ireland, I suggest that an adjustment might be made to the X factor in the pay code. It is an integral part of the pay code and I realise the difficulties that that would entail. The people there are working unsocial hours—not necessarily every day but certainly a great deal—and there is surely scope for improvement of the X factor. We know that the pay review will not appear until next April and will be bound by phase 3. I hope, too, that an attempt will be made to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to have second thoughts about the younger entry.
  We must be prepared. If we do not make preparations we may well be caught short, but if we make preparations the chances are that we shall be in the clear. The obvious solution is an unpopular one—the reintroduction of conscription. In the past it has taught us valuable lessons. I believe—and I hope and trust—that we shall never have to entertain it again. I say that particularly because the success and contentment of the three Services stems from the fact that they are manned by volunteers, and that success and contentment is shown by what is happening in Northern Ireland. However, we must be ready.
  Just over 20 years ago I was commanding my regiment, which at that time was a mixture of Regulars and National Service men. In those days National Service

  469
  was a way of life and everybody accepted it. The forces were big enough and had sufficient worldwide commitments to support the whole intake. The National Service man was paid at a lower rate than his Regular counterpart, even though he might be doing exactly the same jobs. The call-out was total, which meant that the Services were obliged to accept people whose character was not without blemish. The term of service was two years but the initial training was normally done in this country and was expensive in terms of regular instructors, because of the constant turnover.
  My regiment was armed with tanks. Initial training took between four and five months, and by the time a recruit had finished that and had leave he had probably completed six months' service before ever reaching his unit.
  The lessons we learn from that are fourfold. First, if we had to reintroduce conscription under present conditions, people would not accept different scales of pay. Therefore, there must be one pay code. We would be aiming not to expand the forces but merely to keep them up to establishment, and if men were to be asked to do similar jobs they would have to receive similar pay. We must maintain the two-year tour. Equipment has become more and more sophisticated and initial training is almost certain to take six months. To obtain the full benefit of training men would have to serve at least 18 months.
  We must insist that the current character standards applying in the forces are maintained. Experience shows that a rotten apple in the barrel usually takes one good one, if not more, with it. Finally, the call-out must be a total call-out. If we have a selective call-out we are asking for trouble. Taking into consideration the size of the forces as they exist at the moment, there is no hope of the total National Service intake being absorbed. Therefore, there will have to be alternative forms of service. There are glaring gaps. One can put people on the land or in jobs where there are manpower gaps, such as hospitals and institutions. Other places where I can see men being well employed are the coal mines, as in the Bevin Boys' days. I hope that this will not come 1o pass, but let us be prepared.
  470
  I understand that we are meant to be living in a period of détente, but while we have the MBFR and SALT talks we read of alarming increases in tanks, missiles and aircraft in the Warsaw Pact countries. We hear rumours of possible American European ground force reductions. One point emerges strongly: there can be no possible reduction in the defence budget's share of the GNP. One has only to glance at the defence budget to see that over half goes on pay. We have already heard about the increase in sophisticated modern weapons and their greater expense. I was amazed and appalled that responsible hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench should recently have suggested that the defence budget should be decreased by sums varying from £50 million to £100 million.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said £500 million in a television broadcast as recently as November.
  Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my hon. Friend. On this side of the House we have to see that the defence budget is properly spent. I should like to think that this is one of the tasks which our Expenditure Committee has been endeavouring to do. This has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). I hope that we are helping in this matter.
  With a limited defence budget, combined with increasing sophistication of equipment and rising prices, the emphasis must be to ensure that the fighting elements of the three Services are looked after and that any cuts are in the tail or on the administrative side.
  Recently we have been with our committee to various places. We went to see RAF Strike Command. I was appalled to be told of our current weaknesses in operational aircraft and air defences. I was not the only one to feel that way. On a happier note, we learned that the reorganisation of RAF Strike Command had produced considerable savings in money and in manpower—savings of about £10 million a year and a reduction of about 1,400 mostly staff appointments. When we asked how the Royal Air Force had taken this change and what was its effect, we were told it had been to speed

  471
  up the work rather than slow it down. That was very reassuring to hear.
  We went to see the new Army set-up involving the United Kingdom land forces, again the subject of reorganisation. The old Command system has gone with a consequent saving in manpower and real estate. We visited a district headquarters, covering 13 counties, which had 8,000 regular soldiers supported by 9,000 civilians. Admittedly, among those 9,000 civilians was one fairly large central ordnance depot. But that figure did not compare favourably with the figures we got at RAF Strike Command, where 43,000 airmen were supported by only 8,000 civilians. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, we went to Canada and at their forces headquarters we received first-hand information on the progress of the unification of their three forces. Clearly, that is not something that we could attempt in Britain. It is not suitable to us. But there were lessons to be learned. We put feelers out here, to the effect that there should be some form of integration in the training of trades common to all three Services in order to save overheads. Although the feelers were put out there may have been certain facts which mitigated against further action—or it may be that the savings which would have been effected would have been small. At any rate, we had no further information on the subject.
  This week we have examined the Jarrett Report—the report of the committee which has been examining the medical services of the forces. The committee was set up in April 1971 and it published its report this year. The report is now being considered by the Ministry of Defence. It was interesting to note that one of its recommendations coincided exactly with one that our committee made previously—that one of the main Service hospitals in Cyprus—there are two—should be given up. The Jarrett Committee agreed with us. Perhaps, in replying tonight my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to answer three questions. If he cannot reply tonight, perhaps he will do so later, in writing. The first applies to the Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery School at Lulworth, the subject of investigations by the Nugent Committee, which recommended that it should move to Castlemartin, despite vigorous protests
  472
  from people in the Lulworth area, despite vigorous protests from people in the Castlemartin area, and despite vigorous protests from the Army authorities, starting with the Chief of General Staff. I should like to know whether we shall be overruled for the sake of a vociferous protest body.
  Secondly, I should like to know whether, in this time of economy, any thought has been or is being given to a reduction in the size of the Ministry of Defence, considering how effective have been the reductions in RAF Strike Command. Thirdly, I should like to know whether we are going to hear anything about the recommendations that we have made in the past about the integration of trades training.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: I was greatly impressed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) who presides over the Defence Sub-Committee with such distinction. He properly complained about the lack of information given to hon. Members, compared with the detailed information received by Senators and Congressmen generally in the United States. In taking the MRCA and Polaris as examples of systems for which information is inadequate, he was merely illustrating a more general problem, the solution of which will not have been encouraged by the skinny speech of the Minister of State. Not only did he give little information; in relation to the great and convulsive events in the world in the last few weeks I could not help feeling that his speech fell far short of the occasion.
  We have recently seen the way in which a war fought by proxy by the Russians in the Sinai Desert and on the Golan Heights has proved that in terms of weaponry the Russians are far ahead of the West. It is proper that we should reappraise the situation in terms not only of weapons but of general NATO strategy in relation to the Soviet Union.
  We have to ask whether we are producing the right weapons. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye was right to say that every now and again there should be a retrospection as well as a prospect about the kind of weapons that we are producing. We should ask

  473
  whether our system of planning and consultation is satisfactory. During this debate there have been several references to the lack of consultation between the United States and the countries of NATO and the EEC. Opposition Members must ask themselves whether, in the new post-Middle East war context, the proposal to reduce military expenditure by £1,000 million is realistic.
  My purpose today will be to urge, first, that there should be an urgent reappraisal by NATO of the weapons which we have it in mind to produce, and, second, that we must reconsider the technique of consultation among the countries of NATO and particularly between the United States and ourselves, the failure of which brought us so close not simply to disarray but to disintegration.
  Whatever the political merits of the confrontation in the Middle East—with which I will not deal—it turned out to be a demonstration of Soviet power. The Middle East war was a laboratory in which the Soviet Union tested its weapons in exactly the same way as Hitler and Mussolini tested their weapons in the Spanish Civil War. What happened has not only regional importance but global significance. The Frog missiles, and the Snappers and Saggers, as hon. Members opposite who have been there will confirm, proved that they were not just showpieces at May Day demonstrations but weapons capable of being used with deadly effect—in some cases after relatively little training by those who employed them.
  Some of our military assumptions were destroyed in that war. The general assumption of Western strategic planners that armour was the queen of the battlefield was destroyed by infantry with portable anti-tank missiles. The most sophisticated Skyhawks and Phantoms proved highly vulnerable to a combination of SAMs and anti-aircraft guns. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye was absolutely right to say not only that these sophisticated missiles were able to bring down the most advanced aircraft but that the largest proportion of Israeli aircraft in particular which were destroyed were destroyed by conventional guns equipped with radar. Although, as the war continued, electronic counter-measures imported from the USA were
  474
  introduced, saving Israel from the disaster which threatened her, it is still a fact that even those counter-measures systems were unable to deal with the Russian SAM6, which eventually had to be destroyed by land action.
  It is in this framework that we must assess the merits of a defence programme for NATO which was, after all, planned several years ago. Even the 1970 programme was based on certain assumptions which pre-date the Middle East war. There is always the historic danger that generals will be fighting, or at any rate responding to, not the dangers of what might be the next war but the techniques and systems of the last war.
  Bearing this in mind and remembering the somewhat apathetic reaction of the Government, illustrated by the Minister's speech, I do not believe that the fact that the situation has changed is necessarily an argument for cutting the defence programme by £1,000 million—but it is certainly an argument for carefully assessing and examining the question whether military expenditure is being undertaken properly and wisely.
  I respect the view of pacifists who are in favour of a major reduction of arms expenditure, although I am sorry that none of them is represented here today. But if we believe in defence—as, I think, do the majority of my hon. Friends—we must make sure that our defence expenditure is properly applied and is adequate for our needs and, above all, that its adequacy is assessed and measured not by the arms lobby or the military-industrial complex but by this House, acting on the best advice in order to obtain the best value in terms of strategy and tactics.
  This is not a case for giving a blank cheque to the military establishment and those behind it. We have heard a great deal about "flexible response", which presumably means a mixture of conventional and tactical nuclear weapons, but under the nuclear umbrella we have seen in recent weeks how a conventional war can be fought involving the use of admittedly ultra-sophisticated electronic weapons but weapons which have been reduced to inexpensive, simple and basic forms. Masses of infantry and armour, reinforced by advanced weaponry and following the Soviet doctrine of attack in irresistible numbers, nearly overwhelmed Israel.

  475
  Face to face with the Warsaw Pact powers, with an air superiority of two to one—I do not think that the Minister will deny that preponderance—we have to ask whether, in the face of a conventional attack from the air, we should have to respond by nuclear means or should consider ourselves equipped to respond by conventional means—but conventional means which have been improved in the light of recent experience. What we are saying now is that piecemeal conventional wars and other forms of pressure, such as oil sanctions—which are another form of physical pressure—are being instigated by the Soviet Union to our continuing detriment.
  The striking fact is that whenever the Soviet Union advances in this way it does so under a smoke screen of verbiage and verbal traps—a method of using language to convey exactly opposite ideas.
  The Soviet Union talks of peace—and invades Czechoslovakia. It talks of détente—and supplies arms to the Middle East which it must have known, even if it had not supplied the technicians to support them, would mean the beginning of war. Indeed, looking back on it all, we see that the Soviet Union, by enjoying now what Winston Churchill called the "fruits of war" without actually practising war, is really the Tactius gaudens of the situation. We must take note of that fact.
  In this context, we have to ask ourselves whether we can rely exclusively on the United Nations to protect our interests. Can we, indeed, rely on NATO to protect our major world-wide interests? If we do so, we must be prepared to say that our contribution to NATO—I say this to some of my hon. Friends—must be credible, our purpose in supporting NATO must be made clear.
  I do not believe that European defence has any credibility outside NATO. The dream of M. Jobert of some kind of European defence personality which has an existence without the United States is a Gaullist dream, with no kind of reality. When President de Gaulle withdrew from NATO he did not withdraw from the Atlantic alliance. He wanted all the benefits of the alliance but he did not want the burden of making a contribution to NATO. Therefore, we must be very careful when we examine this tantalising
  476
  mirage of the idea of a European defence personality which will be somehow independent of the United States.
  Clearly, when we deal with the United States, we must make our voices heard individually and collectively. Obviously, it was improper of the United States to declare even a partial nuclear alert without proper consultation. Perhaps it merely means that the machinery of consultation is inadequate, in which case the right hon. Gentleman should seek to improve it. We must accept that even the sharing of conventional weapons with our partners in Europe would be an inadequate form of defence unless we had the backing of the United States.
  The Russians showed what an Egyptian peasant plus electronics can do. That is something we must take closely to heart in assessing whether the type of equipment that we supply to NATO is really fitting for the new situation in which we find ourselves. If an Egyptian peasant, reinforced by electronics, can have such success against a highly developed force, what could a Soviet soldier do, brought up two generations removed from the land and reared in an atmosphere of technical development and industry and in close contact with factories and machines in a way which even Red Army soldiers of the last war were not?
  I have one or two questions to put arising from NATO reports. For example, in the NATO provision for last year there was what is called a "procurement committee" of 8,500 anti-tank weapons. As the hon. and gallant Member for Eye said, we have no details, and cannot know what is involved. What sort of weapons are these? Are they wire-controlled—the type of anti-tank weapon used in the Middle East? Are they portable? Do they match up to the Soviet Saggers and Snappers? Even assuming that they are the latest form of anti-tank weapons, is 8,500 not a relatively small number for the potential confrontation in which we may be involved? There is also the question of the provision, under the programme AD70, of 3,000 anti-aircraft guns. What sort of guns are they? Are they equipped with radar? Even then, is 3.000 not also a very small number in relation to the Middle East experience?
  I believe that the basic lesson of the Middle East war is that electronic counter-measure equipment must be studied as a

  477
  matter of vital urgency, and that we must have a new array of mobile anti-aircraft guns and other weaponry. I believe that to be essential because, hitherto, most of our thinking has been based on the assumption that ultrasonic and supersonic aircraft would command the sky and would be irresistible, and that a combination of tanks and aircraft are the weapon of tomorrow as they were the weapon of yesterday. Those assumptions have been undermined.
  Air Vice Marshall S. W. B. Menaul, Director General of the Institute for Defence Studies, has summed up our tactical needs in the light of the Middle East war. He says:
  "While the advantage appears to have shifted imperceptibly in favour of defence, much more needs to be done in the anti-tank, ECM and SAM fields to correct the serious imbalance that exists between the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. NATO forces defend a front of 400 miles from the Baltic to the Austrian border and their strength is thinly distributed along it.
  Advanced technology, which is available now, is the key, since sufficient manpower will never be available to increase the effectiveness of NATO armies and air forces.
  NATO aircraft are on the whole superior to those of the Warsaw Pact and it could well be that in the ground-attack role Europe could have an impressive advantage if it exploited Harrier can operate from semi-prepared strips, thereby increasing its own security and the sortie rate."
  In the light of that, I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman, instead of announcing that the Harrier was to be purchased, as many of us confidently hoped he would do, saying yet again that orders for the Harrier are to be postponed. I said in an earlier discussion that this kind of delay in procurement is one of the reasons for the escalating costs of military equipment, especially of aircraft equipment. The right hon. Gentleman flatly denied that statement, but I assure him from my own observations in the factories of Coventry and elsewhere that the dillying and dallying by the Government and previous Governments has been one of the major reasons for the escalation in costs.
  What measures of urgency are the Government going to take to face the challenge of our times? We are living in a revolutionary ago in which, within a few
  478
  weeks, the whole strategic situation of the West has been transformed. Our Western industrial democracy is under threat in an unimaginable way because we seem to be proceeding with our lives and our industry in the ways in which we went on with them in the past. But that does not undo the underlying fact that Western democracies, including our own, which is uppermost in our minds, relying as they do on energy, are now faced by a stranglehold which in a byegone age could not have been tolerated. How we resolve these questions is for the future—for the development, I hope, of other means of exerting pressures that ensure that the life blood and the breath of our industrial democracy are preserved.
  There is no doubt that at the time of the Middle East war the Western Alliance was in disarray. It is, and was, useless to talk of the Brussels Declaration at the time of the war as anything but part of a general obeisance to the oil States. It was not a declaration of solidarity. There was no solidarity, political or military. The fundamentals of NATO were ignored when there was need of urgent and collective action to restrain the Russian presence in the Middle East, from which we are suffering second-hand.
  The postscript of those days lies in the present humiliated and dangerous posture of the West, grovelling on its knees to the oil potentates who, like the Russians, know that when the tocsin sounded the Western countries were not there. We should be grateful that the United States did not echo the French king who said to the Duc de Crillon:
  "Hang yourself, brave Crillon. We fought at Arques, and you weren't there."
  We live in days of grave economic danger. But the danger is deepened by our conspicuous military weakness, which deprives us of a great measure of our authority. The Middle East war proved the weaknesses of NATO as well as of the European Community. It is up to the Government to restore Britain's military and political credibility within the alliances by a radical and far-reaching strategic and tactical reappraisal. Only then can we restore our shaken authority with our enemies as well as with our American allies.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I admire the common sense of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) when he attacks and criticises some of the wilder eccentricities in some of the fringe policies of his party's defence strategy, but I part company with him in his technical assessment of the lessons of the Middle East war. We cannot assume that this shows that Soviet technology and equipment is superior to Western equipment. At sea the Russian STYX missile was ineffective—or, rather, the counter-measures against it were very effective. On land, Western tanks, particularly the Centurions—even without the spares and ammunition they might have had—were more effective than any of the Soviet battle tanks. In the air the American aircraft which the Israeli Air Force was flying proved to be more effective than the Soviet aircraft.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has given some remarkable statistics in Press articles on this matter. It is fair to say that the whole war underlined the importance of electronic warfare. I do not believe that the West lagged behind the Soviet Union in this branch of technology. I am glad that weapon development seems to suggest that the mass of armour and aircraft which the Soviet can put into action can be counter-balanced by more effective weapons which we have in the West.
  In opening the debate my right hon. Friend was right to say that it would be a long time before we could draw the real lessons from the fighting. It will, indeed. I am sure that the Arab forces and their Soviet allies will not give us the technical information we need to draw the lessons from the fighting. I am reasonably sure, given the present state of diplomatic relations, that the Israelis will not be keen to give us information we need. I am also reasonably sure that the Americans will not be too enthusiastic about passing on to us the information that they have received from the Israelis. It takes a long time to draw the proper conclusions from the outbreak of fighting in the Middle East.
  We know, without any technical analysis, that a surprise attack can be a very effective weapon. There is no doubt that the Egyptians and the Syrians
  480
  gained an enormous advantage from the element of surprise which they were able to achieve. Given the importance of the element of surprise, much of the discussion earlier, about the state of alert of the American forces in Europe at the time of the Middle East war, sounded rather threadbare and academic.
  Instead of complaining that the American forces were brought up to an adequate state of preparedness—as the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) seemed to be arguing—we ought to have been pressing the Americans at an earlier date to bring their forces to a state of readiness at a time of substantial danger to the West. I fear that the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Member, if they carry any weight, may make the Americans, in some future state of emergency, more reluctant to bring their forces to a state of readiness.
  There should be an overhauling of the whole system under which NATO brings its forces to a greater state of alert, not in order to slow down bringing the forces to a proper state of readiness but to make it easier for us to enter into a proper posture of preparedness. Therefore, in so far as we are reviewing the whole system of security alerts and preparedness, I hope that we remove some of the brakes in the system, rather than slow it down.
  Mr. John Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misunderstand what I said. I was not arguing against a proper posture; I was saying that in any partnership the partners should be aware of what is being done.
  Mr. Goodhart: I agree that partners should be aware of what is being done. I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, and it seemed that the tenor of them was distinctly hostile to what the Americans had done. We should have pressed the Americans earlier to move to a state of alert. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consistent and we need some degree of consistency in these defence debates.
  I have argued for more than a decade that it was absolute madness for us to withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf at a time when we were wholly dependent

  481
  on oil from the Gulf for the energy which our industry needs.
  I do not argue that if our forces were still in the Persian Gulf there would be no oil problem today. I do argue that by abandoning our positions in the Gulf we have weakened our negotiating position with the Governments there. At the same time, I do not argue that we should turn round and try to put forces back into the Gulf tomorrow. We have to look at the question whether we are still as much in favour of the status quo in the Persian Gulf as we have been for the past 40 years. We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we imagine there will not be some violence in the Gulf in future.
  When there is an explosive combination of heavily armed Arabs, vast quantities of money and vast reserves of oil, the chances of a conflict or a coup before we cease to be so dependent on Middle Eastern oil—by the end of the decade—are very good indeed. I believe that our contingency plans should take this risk into account.
  Mr. Carol Mather: On the question of the Persian Gulf, it has probably occurred to my hon. Friend that we were responsible for the foreign policy of the Gulf States. If we had continued to be so responsible it might have made a big difference to the present situation.
  Mr. Goodhart: That is to a large extent true. It would certainly have strengthened our negotiating position.
  Six years ago some of us were warning that a British scuttle from Aden was likely to endanger peace in the Middle East. We have been proved right on two counts. First, Aden is now the centre for attacks on the still friendly State of Muscat and Oman, and there has been the blockade of the mouth of the Red Sea. Six years ago some of us argued that we ought to maintain a presence on the Isle of Perim. If we had done so it would have been a great deal easier to bring an international force into being at the foot of the Red Sea, where the danger of a blockade is currently a major threat to peace. I do not believe that we should have abandoned our military positions in the Middle East.
  We meet under the shadow of the NATO Military Council meeting. Perhaps we should be thankful that that
  482
  meeting has not produced even more violent explosions. Many people seem to believe that the disagreement that has grown up between the United States and the European allies in NATO stems largely from the Middle East. Alas, I believe that the disagreement was there before fighting broke out.
  I believe that the root cause of our divergence of opinion is money. When Europe was poor America was prepared to pick up a large part of the financial bill, but when Europe grew rich—when the dollar was constantly devalued against the deutschemark and the franc—it was only natural that a weary and divided United States should look to Europe to carry a greater share of the defence burden. This is not at all surprising.
  We ought to have taken the lead in trying to bring into existence a new method of burden sharing within NATO. We certainly managed to give the impression to our American partners that we were wholly opposed to this and were taking a lead in encouraging the Europeans to resist it. That may be wrong, but I fear it is the impression that has been given and it has done much to jeopardise the old "special relationship"—now, I think, called the natural relationship—between ourselves and the United States. It has lasted for 30 years. We have benefited enormously from it in the defence area. The time has come when we must give our highest priority to trying to repair the breaches in this alliance.
  I have been critical of both the Opposition Front Bench and my own Front Bench. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Government on their considerable achievement in Ireland. I was glad to hear the tribute that the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid to the rôle which our forces have played in Northern Ireland, in at least laying some foundation for future political stability. But the danger has not vet passed. In some ways it is more difficult to bear the burdens of discomfort and long hours when the pressing danger seems to have passed and when one has slipped out of the headlines and away from the television screens.
  I hope that the lowering of the temperature in Northern Ireland will not lead to any reduction in our efforts to improve accommodation and amenities for the troops. I hope, too, that in the course of

  483
  the next few months we shall be able to thin out the number of soldiers serving there. If we can move to a situation in which soldiers are not expected to serve in Northern Ireland on emergency tours for more than 12 or 18 months a great deal will have been done for the re-engagement and recruiting figures. I am sure that we continue to owe an enormous debt to our soldiers in Northern Ireland—a debt we have not begun to repay.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) that we should be careful about the length of tour that we ask our soldiers to serve in Northern Ireland. Is it wise for the hon. Member for Beckenham and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) to talk in terms of putting the clock back in the Arab world?
  I hate to put the Ministry of Defence to any trouble for events that will not happen, but I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to give attention to the strategic implications of the Liberal proposal to build a dam across the Channel. That proposal was put forward by an official Liberal Party spokesman. It is not my fault that the Liberals are absent today. I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's reflections on the vulnerability of locks, and the question whether through-deck cruisers could go through the locks, given the tides. A study might be done in the odd hours when the Ministry of Defence has nothing else to do.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. Friend referred to the Liberal Party. The Liberals were also absent when we debated the Consumer Credit Bill. They are never here.
  Mr. Dalyell: What has happened to OPMACC? Although it is understandable that this military aid operation to the civil community might be run down in a situation of acute shortage of forces, once our troops return from Northern Ireland we should go back to the work started by Sir Derek Lang in remote parts of the country in what might be a post-Ireland situation.
  Those of us who are interested in Service recruitment view with alarm the re-engagement figures, particularly for
  484
  warrant officers and ncos. May we have the Minister's reflections on that?
  In passing, I shall touch on a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). What are the implications of the oil shortage for industry and the military world as a whole? This is a new situation. To give a trivial example, the week before last the Sunday Mail commented on helicopters flying from the carrier to Arbroath and back at a time of fuel shortage. What instructions has the Department given for saving fuel, particularly that used by voracious eaters of fuel such as helicopters?
  Coming back to the old subject of the through-deck cruiser, just as in churches and cathedrals there is a tabulated list showing that a certain amount has been given towards certain funds and so much more is wanted, I suggest that outside the yard where the through-deck cruiser is being built there should be erected a notice board giving monthly estimates of the cost. The cost started at £70 million, went up to £75 million. £85 million, £90 million, £100 million. The Government Front Bench then assented to £110 million. The latest figure I have is at least £120 million.
  When I asked the Prime Minister about the public sector borrowing requirement he said that it was serious but that public expenditure in the years 1974–75 and 1975–76 would start to come down. We shall believe that when we see it. Granted that the MRCA, Sea Wolf and the through-deck cruiser are maturing, there is a public expenditure crisis in the Defence Department alone. That will have serious implications for the Government's overall strategy, particularly in the defence budget, and a decision must be made soon on the next two through-deck cruisers.
  In company with several admirals, such as Sir Ian McGeoch—to whom I may refer as he has retired—I wonder whether it is sensible to have these enormously expensive ships which in the opinion of both young and old naval officers to whom I have spoken are very vulnerable. There is a division of opinion in the Admiralty whether it is sensible to have a ship that can be knocked out by a fairly simple and inexpensive weapon. I should like to have the Minister's reflection on that.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman speak so volubly on behalf of retired naval officers. Every naval officer ever born knows that it is necessary at sea to have air power on the spot on the dot.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is the hon. and gallant Gentleman against Sir Ian McGeoch and others. There are doubts among the hon. and gallant Gentleman's colleagues, both serving and retired. I am not saying that it is absolutely wrong in all circumstances, because it would be an impertinence for me to express such a dogmatic opinion, but I am entitled to ask the Ministry of Defence for some serious reflections on this question of vulnerability which has been raised by people who are far more qualified than I am.
  I wish to raise in some detail a matter on which I wrote to the Minister responsible for the Navy, to which he courteously replied. That is the North Sea environmental command proposed by John Erikson—a professor at the University of Edinburgh—and his team at Heriot-Watt. If I seem to speak with knowledge it is partly because I attended one of the many seminars and talked with Professor Erikson and his colleagues. It is proposed that the Ministry of Defence, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, should set up a North Sea environmental command. There are problems of defence and difficult legal problems in relation to oil rigs. By 1980 we may hope for at least 120 oil rigs in the North Sea. The Navy lacks the specialist facilities and the complex policing and security resources that will be needed. It is an entirely new task for the Royal Navy.
  The rigs are a potential source of massive pollution should there be accidental spillage, pollution by collision and pollution by sabotage. They are targets for acts of sabotage or blackmail by extremist organisations. I will not say that oil rigs are sitting ducks, but it takes little imagination to realise the potential they represent to determined saboteurs for sabotage or blackmail. This is a highly sensitive political and security issue, and its importance will increase as more oil and natural gas are discovered.
  As well as the defence aspect there is the question of the precise legal status which has lapsed into one rather grey
  486
  area of international law. There is not only a military requirement but an international law requirement. This could be taken into account by a civil and military command of the kind which Professor Erikson suggests. The economic and offshore technology expertise that is growing up in our universities, not least in Heriot-Watt, could be brought into the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry in this environmental organisation. As envisaged by the working party it would be a unique force, commanded perhaps by the Royal Navy but including civilian skills, and tailored to the special problems of the area and any oil that may be discovered in the Celtic Sea off Wales or Cornwall. For underwater operations in the North Sea the Navy maintains an expert but small deep-diving unit. This will be inadequate to protect such a vast operation in the North Sea.
  One can see advantages in a joint military-civil command since this may attract able top graduates or people of that calibre to undertake diving protection and diving research work. The wonderful facilities at Alverstoke are being harnessed to the North Sea oil effort. If the Government hope to bring oil more quickly to British shores, as I gather is the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry, the expert naval facilities should be used as much as possible and should be put at the disposal of the oil companies.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for The Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the extent of correspondence with my Department. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting a document from Professor Erikson and we shall examine that document with care. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he has already seen that document. I have not.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have had detailed discussions with Professor Erikson on a number of matters.
  I shall not address the House at length because it would be unfair to other hon. Members. I conclude by saying that the law of the sea conference which was to take place at Santiago is now to be held in Caracas. I hope that the House will have a chance to look at some of the papers and comment upon them before

  487
  the British delegation goes to the conference. These are early days, but we do not want this matter to be left to the last minute. I hope that representations will be made to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to facilitate serious discussions on this topic, if possible in Government time. The decisions made at Caracas will be very important to the United Kingdom, particularly in regard to what constitutes national waters and international waters and also what comprises a national sea bed as opposed to an international sea bed. It may be that we shall have to make major concessions in terms of Britain's national interests. If we do, I hope that Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the kind of concessions we may have to make.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I must confess some surprise at the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in opening this debate for the Opposition when he spoke about Westland helicopters. Has he forgotten the deliveries to South Africa of the Puma helicopters in the joint Anglo-French project which took place during the tenure of the Labour Government of which he was a member? I wonder what consultations took place then with the Nigerian Government of the day.
  I welcome the heavy hint about the naval version of the Harrier given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. I accept that it may not be appropriate to make an announcement at this stage, but there will be a widespread welcome that at last we are coming to the point of decision on what could be an important export winner. I accept my right hon. Friend's strictures to the effect that it is not possible immediately to evaluate the lessons to be learned from the recent conflict in the Middle East. Nevertheless, I should like to offer a few observations as one who makes no pretension to any military expertise.
  At the root of this conflict is seen the hand of the Soviet Union. This was a view put forward forcibly by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). It is difficult for us to comprehend the volume of equipment pumped into this theatre of war, for such it is, by
  488
  the Soviet Union. In the period since the war of June 1967, 3,800 tanks have been delivered by the Soviet Union to Egypt and Syria alone, leaving aside Algeria, Iraq and other countries nearby. In addition, the Soviet Union has sent to Egypt and Syria nearly 1,000 front-line tactical fighter aircraft of the highest sophistication, and large quantities of missiles—not only anti-aircraft missiles but also the soft-target surface-to-surface Scud missiles with a range of 160 miles—which means that even from the West side of the Suez Canal they can reach within 30 miles of Tel Aviv. This is something which clearly will have a substantial bearing on any question of the future of the Sinai in the event of an Israeli withdrawal.
  It must be clear that no peace settlement in the Middle East can survive such an unrestricted injection of weapons of war into this area. The level of delivery by the Soviet Union to the Arab States has been running at more than three-to-one the rate of United States resupply to Israel.
  A second lesson of which we would do well to take note is that surprise attacks can come like thunderbolts out of a blue sky. It is very much the basis of NATO strategy that there will be a period of tension of several weeks before we need be at a high level of readiness. This is something that can no longer be indefinitely relied upon.
  Various speeches have dealt with the problem of how the new missiles introduced by the Soviet Union into the Middle East conflict may affect the situation in Central Europe and indeed the future of the fighter bomber and the tank. It is clear that the SAM missiles supplied by the Soviet Union were in no way decisive in this conflict. The Israeli Air Force attributes no more than 10 per cent. of its losses, which total approximately 100, to SAM 6. The overwhelming number were lost to heavy concentrations, literally in their thousands, of quadruple 23 mm, 37 mm and 57 mm anti-aircraft guns, as well as SA2's, SA3's and the SA7 Strela missiles launched in salvoes of eight from tracked vehicles—a modification of the single-shot version, which appeared in North Vietnam.
  Mr. Geoffrey Stewart-Smith: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the

  489
  Middle East war provided lessons which Britain should learn? I refer to the arrival of self-homing short-range guided anti-tank weapons of which it appears we have no counterpart since the Hellier and Karl Gustav weapons are now out of date. It is a great source of concern to us that we are being left behind in this technology.
  Mr. Churchill: I agree, and I was about to come to that very point.
  As for surface-to-air missiles, another intriguing statistic is that the Israeli air force had a loss rate of 0·9 per 100 sorties—in other words, less than 1 per cent. of their aircraft failed to return from each sortie. That said, they made more than 11,000 sorties, and that accounts for their loss of more than 100 aircraft.
  It is also important to realise that for the first three days the Israeli air force was not able to operate, as it would have done had the initiative been with the Israelis, by attacking the missiles themselves. For three days Israeli aircraft had to operate in the full air defence environment on both fronts, especially on the Golan Heights, to provide first aid to their hard-pressed ground forces and to give close ground support. It was in those three days that the Israelis sustained very nearly two-thirds of their total aircraft losses.
  Later in the conflict, when they turned their attention to the equally sophisticated and concentrated belts of SAM missiles on the west side of the Suez Canal, the situation was very different. Although there were only seven SAM batteries within the enclave taken by Israeli ground forces on the west side of the Canal, four times as many SAM missile sites were destroyed by Israeli air strikes by Friday, 19th October, three days before the cease-fire. That was done with a very low level of loss and it is significant to notice the difference.
  Israeli aircraft, above all her Phantoms, were able with relatively limited losses to attack and destroy the sophisticated SAM missile systems when they were their target. Obviously when they were operating to provide ground cover their losses were very high.
  One of my hon. Friends referred to the effect of new missiles in the land warfare.
  490
  This is much more far reaching than the development of the SAM missile. The Sagger anti-tank missile requires very little training to operate. It means that an infantry man by himself, hiding behind a rock or in a trench, can pot a tank at a range of just under a mile, and do so before the tank commander has a chance of identifying from where, the missile is coming. Sagger missiles are not invulnerable. Even though they are wire-guided, within a few days the Israelis were able to develop electronic means to deflect them to a very large extent. Although it is clear that the tanks is not obsolete, none the less this conflict has reinforced the point that there is a necessity for evenly-balanced forces on the battlefield in terms not only of armour but of artillery and infantry and above all of infantry equipped with effective personal anti-tank missiles.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what this country has on the drawing board in terms of anti-tank missiles, especially anti-tank missiles operated by a single soldier. Will my hon. Friend see that the highest priority is accorded to the development of such a system and to its deployment to every platoon in the British Army?
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will remember that the British Army has been equipped with the Vigilant since 1964? That is a fairly rudimentary and basic but none the less effective antitank guided weapon. It would be wrong to give the impression that the British Army is ill equipped. It is, after all, in the process of being equipped with the Swingfire, an extremely effective antitank weapon.
  Mr. Churchill: I accept that, though I understand that they are systems which are relatively sophisticated, which require more than one man to operate them and which cannot be carried by one man.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I remind my hon. Friend that Short Bros, and Harland are producing Blowpipe, which is a man-portable anti-aircraft weapon.
  Mr. Churchill: In that event, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what steps are being taken to deploy these systems to every unit in the British Army. Perhaps that has been done, too, unbeknown to me.

  491
  I turn my attention from the Middle East to some rather disturbing trends in the European theatre. Although Britain's Armed Forces have declined in the past 20 years from a strength of about 902,000 to 350,000, those of the Soviet Union have been growing steadily since 1965 by more than 275,000. What is more, although the figures for Britain's tanks and tactical combat aircraft have remained practically static since 1970, in those three years alone—three years characterised by the word "détente"—the Soviet Union has deployed in Central Europe alone 2,000 more main battle tanks and 400 more tactical combat aircraft. These increases by the Soviet Union in Central Europe represent approximately double Britain's total strength of aircraft and tanks. What is more, this has been done at a time when the Soviet Union have been deploying an army of about 1 million men equipped with tactical nuclear weapons along the Sino-Soviet border.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that this concentration of Soviet expenditure on arms represented substantially more than any policy of self-defence. I agree wholeheartedly, but I also ask what we are doing about it. It endorse the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North that this is no time for our country to talk in terms of cuts in defence expenditure.
  Perhaps it is true to say—and frighteningly so—that, leaving aside nuclear weapons, Britain's defence capability relative to the forces facing us has not been weaker at any time since 1938. We may seem to be far removed from the area of principal concentration of the Soviet arms build-up. However we are only 20 minutes' flying time from the air bases of East Germany.
  I have the highest regard for our soldiers and airmen. They are second to none in the world. But without sufficient numbers of aircraft and tanks their fate could be that of those brave Israeli soldiers manning the front lines of the Golan Heights and the Canal on 6th October who found themselves facing a first-wave assault of 2,250 Syrian and Egyptian tanks with an equal number of tanks in reserve.
  We must ask ourselves what the British taxpayer is getting for his £3,000 million
  492
  of defence expenditure and where the money is going. I am sure the vision that some people have of armies of civil servants pushing round endless cups of tea in no sense represents the picture. But it is a cause for great concern that every year a higher proportion of the defence budget should go to pay, pensions and other non-military expenditure and that at the end of the day there should be an ever-smaller slice of the defence cake left for new hardware which is vital. I must ask my hon. Friend how many non-industrial civil servants and civilians come out of the defence Vote and what is the total cost of those personnel. What is the cost of pensions for the Armed Forces within the defence Vote? Could not consideration be given to the transfer of these payments from the defence Vote so that more money was available for the purchase of hardware.
  No doubt if I asked my hon. Friend the Minister how much of the defence budget was devoted to hardware I should be told that that information was secret. Perhaps it is best that it should be so, because it is no doubt very small. How can we in this country be satisfied with only 900 tanks, one-fifth of the number that Egypt and Syria deployed in the recent war against Israel? How can we be happy with less than 300 tactical combat aircraft, not even one-third of the 1,000 tactical combat aircraft of Egypt and Syria? Perhaps my right hon. Friends, the Minister for the Defence of the Army and the Air Force, will ponder these figures.
  We talk of giving guarantees in the Middle East. What are we in a position to guarantee? It is very much an open question whether the whole of the British Armed Forces together with sufficient tanks and aircraft today to withstand the weight of armour and tactical air power deployed by Egypt and Syria in the recent Middle East conflict Is there not more that the Government can do to provide more hardware to our forces and to increase expenditure on electronic counter-measures, something which is pointed up very much by the recent conflict? Is there nothing that we can do about the totally inadequate number of reservists that we have? I for one would like to see a one-year voluntary—and I stress the word "voluntary" National Service available to anyone who wishes

  493
  to do it. It would find many recruits. It would also be a source of substantial reserve manpower carrying on into the future in case we should need it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman had a word with his Prime Minister on the little matter of public expenditure? The Prime Minister has promised that public expenditure in the years about which the hon. Gentleman is talking would decrease and not increase.
  Mr. Churchill: Some of us feel that the situation has become so critical and that the preponderance of armaments facing us in Central Europe today means that we should be talking in terms of increasing the defence Vote and, above all, increasing it in terms of hardware. That is what I wish to see. I believe that I am not alone in that wish on the Government back benches and, perhaps, on the Opposition benches.
  While the West talks of détente, the Soviet Union is continuing to arm. I wonder what the men in the Kremlin think when they survey the great democracies of Western Europe and see them cowed by the oil weapon wielded by a handful of petty sheikdoms. Recent events have shown the dangers for Europe of allowing ourselves the luxury of a foreign policy independent of the United States while not being willing to afford the cost of an independent European defence policy.
  It is right, indeed essential, that Europe should move forward to an independent foreign policy, but a vital prior requirement is that we should have an independent defence policy. Until that is achieved the United States' commitment to Europe's defence is vital and it is one which cannot be treated in any cavalier fashion. We should attach the highest priority to the re-establishment of our former good relationship with the United States.
  Will the Government show the way to our European partners by substantially increasing appropriations for hardware for the British Armed Forces and pressing our European partners to move forward to a credible European defence posture?
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: When my right hon. Friend opened the debate
  494
  he said that there would be an alteration in the disposition of ships of the Royal Navy east of the Cape. It would be fair to sum up his speech by saying that what he wished to achieve was a more effective use of our ships in that area. I want to deal with two interrelated subjects. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has touched upon one of them. They are the Beira patrol and the defence—if that is the right word—of the oil rigs, and so on, in the North Sea.
  Cost-effectiveness is the great cry these days, even in matters of defence. I question the cost-effectiveness of the Beira patrol. If ever there were a time when we were wasting money, and time itself—and, indeed, in the present context, energy—the Beira patrol takes the biscuit. To maintain that patrol we clearly have to have three frigates constantly at the ready. One of my hon. Friends has just pointed to the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether the Opposition would equate themselves with a modern frigate. I very much doubt it.
  The Beira patrol is achieving practically nothing, and the Royal Navy is stretched quite far enough already. This is a very delicate matter. If it is referred to when my hon. Friend winds up the debate, no doubt we shall be told that we are fulfilling a NATO rôle. If we are fulfilling a NATO rôle in maintaining that patrol, why are not some of our other NATO partners' or United Nations' ships involved? Why should we carry the heat and burden all the time?
  I had the opportunity recently of talking to the captain of one of the frigates which had been engaged on this patrol. I asked him what he thought were the benefits, if any, of his ship serving on this patrol. He said that the only possible benefit that the ship got was that the personnel had a little extra time in which to work up in going out to that part of the world. That in itself is a fairly average condemnation of this exercise.
  Miss Joan Hall: It is also interesting that the Indian Ocean at present contains a certain number of Russian ships. If we have a number of frigates there, perhaps we can see what is happening with regard to those Russian ships, whereas if our frigates were not

  495
  there we would not know about the movements of Russian ships.
  Mr. Baker: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think there are many Russian ships off Beira at this moment.
  Miss Hall: They are in the Indian Ocean.
  Mr. Baker: That may be so. I am sure that the House would very much like to know how many blockade runners the Beira patrol has stopped while it has been on duty out there over the last six years or so, and what effect the patrol has had on the economy of Rhodesia, which it is supposed to be damaging. Obviously, any estimate of the effect on the economy of Rhodesia must be a guess, but it is one that we are entitled to know. I should also like to know how long Her Majesty's Government believe that we are to go on with this farce—because a farce it certainly is.
  I should now like to turn to the security of the oil and other rigs in the North Sea, both now and in the future. I understand that at present there are 14 semi-submersible rigs in the northern North Sea with two jack-up types, making a total of 16. In the summer of next year there will be 50 and, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, there will be 120 by 1980. In addition to that, there are already 26 completed platforms in the southern North Sea, so that is some measure of the problem that we have to face in this context. Furthermore, I understand that there are also nine or 10 permanent platforms in the course of construction. There is also quite a possibility that some of the oil, if not the gas, will be brought ashore by having totally submersed connecting points on the sea bed.
  These are all potential targets for all sorts of weapons, not least wave-hopping aircraft. I understand that we have no proper airborne radar which is capable of dealing with that sort of problem, so the Navy and the Royal Air Force should be trying to get early warning radar aloft as quickly as possible. I submit that speedy action is essential. One possible answer to the problem of the wave-hopping aircraft is, alas, four years ahead—the versatile Type 22 frigate which will not be in service until later.
  496
  It will have surface-to-surface as well as SAM missiles. I suggest that the half squadron of frigates which is needed for the wasteful Beira patrol could be withdrawn from that duty and trained specially for the protection of the rigs and platforms.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) rightly stressed the enormous preponderance of the USSR's ironmongery. I remind the House that the USSR will shortly have two aircraft carriers, whereas we are running down and will soon have none. The Russians already have 400 operational submarines, of which some 75 are nuclear powered, and they have a great many frigate-type vessels which are equipped with surface-to-surface missiles. I remind the House that by the 1980s the United Kingdom will be almost self-sufficient in oil. Can anybody doubt that the platforms and rigs would be a No. 1 priority for the Soviet marine forces if there were a general conflagration? A run-down in oil supplies in peacetime could cripple our economy. How much more would an attack on these rigs in wartime cripple our economy?
  The hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned guerrilla attacks on these rigs and platforms. Anybody who wished to attack them, either now or in the future, must be made to think again. Not only could sabotage cause a great deal of trouble, disturbance and inconvenience, but any pollution would have a very serious effect upon our coastline and our very large fishing grounds in the North Sea. The other side of the coin is the damage that could be caused near the shore, or on the shore itself, by the fracturing of the landward or near-landward end of a pipeline. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence has a twofold yet unitary problem to face. First, we must fairly soon have highly mobile landward security forces to guard against or repulse attacks on the pipelines coming ashore, and there should be close co-operation with the oil industry to see that emergency repairs can be carried out quickly. Secondly, a very efficient communications network is necessary between the rigs and a shore-based naval and air headquarters. Such a headquarters should be established in the North-East of Scotland, independent of, but responsible to, the Flag Officer, Scotland.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy with the civil and military North Sea environment command suggested by Professor Erikson, which I outlined?
  Mr. Baker: Yes, but there would need to be more emphasis on the military side. There should be a high military content, although civilians will be necessary to help. A half squadron of frigates is the minimum naval force, but we also need air transportable marines and sappers, and helicopters to carry them. Now that the cod war is over, a Nimrod night well be attached to or under orders from, that headquarters, and a good deal of specialised training is necessary as soon as possible. This is no time to go into the interaction between oil exploration and exploitation and the fishing industry, but the training of a force such as I have outlined might prevent fouling of the seabed by debris from rigs and platforms.
  Mr. Stewart-Smith: Under international law, does this House have absolute control over exactly what happens on these oil derricks? Are we responsible for their security? Can we send out troops to protect them?
  Mr. Baker: To be perfectly honest, I cannot answer that question, but I imagine that we have jurisdiction. There is a Bill going through the other place which will have a certain bearing on what my hon. Friend asked, and perhaps he would like to have a look at it. At all events, I am sure that the House will be interested to hear what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take on these very important matters.
  8.0 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am astonished that so few Labour hon. Members are present. At the Labour Party Conference strong views were expressed by some leading Front Benchers. I only hope that their absence means that they have changed their views.
  I turn to the question of the way in which naval ships will be fuelled. The Minister may have seen a report in Business Week about the oil threat to the American forces. It says:
  "With the Mideast situation delicate, the Arab cutoff forced the US to supply the Sixth Fleet by a massive air and sea lift. But this
  498
  has not been enough, say sources in Europe, and the US military has curtailed its normal sea and air operations—potentially dangerous when there is still a possibility of renewed Mideast fighting".
  The United States forces could not get any oil in the Philippines, even though the four refineries in the Philippines are 100 per cent. American owned. The report continues:
  "The decrees by the oil companies and the Philippine Government caused a 100 per cent. slash in bunker fuel, grease and lubricants for the huge Seventh Fleet base at Subic Bay."
  Are we sure that we have made provision to fuel the Navy? We have a small enough Navy as it is, and we cannot have it restricted because of lack of fuel. There are ships in the Far East at the present time and they may be faced with a shortage of fuel. I hope that we shall be told whether we have friends, for example, in India and other places who will be willing to refuel our Fleet when needed.
  Views have been expressed from the Opposition benches about Greece and NATO. The matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) in the last debate on 15th March. I hope that we shall not continue to wish to push Greece out of NATO for, if Greece is removed from NATO, Turkey will be left out on a limb. That will be unfortunate. Furthermore, we must remember that the Foreign Minister of Holland, Mr. Van der Stoel, made a report on that matter at the Council of Europe, so we knew what his feelings have been from the very beginning. I hope that this matter will not be pursued by Labour hon. Members. We need Greece, and it is better for Europe that Greece should remain in NATO.
  Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Lady is saying that we should not push for the removal of Greece from NATO. Does she agree that it is appropriate to bring pressure to bear upon Greece in no uncertain way to restore the fundamental freedoms which NATO exists to protect?
  Dame Joan Vickers: That was done by the Council of Europe, and it made no difference at all. In any case, the hon. Gentleman is talking about the internal affairs of Greece and we want Greece to help us with external affairs.
  Mr. Stewart-Smith: What pressure did the Labour Government bring on Portugal

  499
  to restore the rule of law and civil liberties in Portugal when they were in power?
  Dame Joan Vickers: I shall quote from the speech of the Minister of State for Defence on 15th March. He said:
  "Defence policy goes in step with foreign policy; and if, as we hope, world conditions change, and in particular if Western and Eastern Europe move into a more normal and civilised relationship, then of course, our defence policy will be suitably adapted. No one wants to spend more on defence than he needs to, and if we get a chance to reduce our expenditure we shall take it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1973; Vol. 927, c. 1503.]
  But history suggests we are more likely to spend too little on defence than too much.
  If we are to fit in defence policy with our present foreign policy, surely we will have to spend more or at least maintain an equivalent rate and not have any of the cuts which we are told we shall have? I represent a Service town. There is anxiety—and I am sure that the anxiety is on a national level—about the cuts which may take place; people are anxious that they will make a difference to the whole of the Western area.
  I have recently been to China. The Chinese people are practical about these matters. They are building air raid shelters in every one of their major towns. They are spending money on providing shelters when they would much prefer to be spending money on improving the standard of living of their people. However, they see the necessity to spend money on air raid shelters because of the terrible tension which exists throughout the world.
  We know that has been well demonstrated by recent events in the Middle East. Those events will affect the lives of millions of people, and we shall not, for example, be able to continue to help the poorer nations if we cannot maintain growth because of industrial action or because of the lack of oil.
  We must remember that Russia has reinforced its frontier with China, but it has not depleted its forces in Europe. That is why the Chinese are so wise to be ready and we should take their example and not necessarily build air raid shelters, but be ready for any eventualities which may occur in the not too distant future.
  500
  I am now a delegate to the Western European Union. The European countries must reach agreement to bring into effect much better co-operation. Europe cannot defend itself without France and the United States. The Western European Union should contribute more to the services which are rendered by the United States.
  It seems that there is no real European defence policy or armaments policy and if we are not prepared to have such a policy we are wasting money and time going to the many meetings of various organisations, such as the Western European Union, NATO, the Euro-group and the North Atlantic Alliance, which I suppose is probably the most successful organisation in co-ordinating the defence policies of Europe and America.
  It seems that there is too much overlapping and unnecessary expense in producing individual weapons and ships Surely it should be agreed between the different nations that overlapping should be avoided. It seems ridiculous that France, for example, should be building tanks, that Germany should be building tanks, and that we should be building tanks, without knowing the exact number of tanks which each country is building. It would be better for one nation to build tanks and for other nations to make other necessary weapons, so that would avoid overlapping.
  The navies have too many frigates, in comparison with other ships—or, rather, they are out of proportion with the other ships of the various navies.
  I gather that defence costs over £3,000 million. BAOR costs about £354 million and that RAF General Purposes Combat Force about £496 million and we cannot afford to cut any of those sums. I support what has been said about trying to shed some of the high costs of education, housing, welfare services and pensions. The latter, for example, costs approximately £173 million. Whitehall costs about £69 million. It is difficult to discover the exact details, but local administration costs £184 million and family and personal services cost £90 million. None of that money is used for the defence of the country. It is used to help the people who are defending our country. However, they must have the equipment to use for our defence. The money which we are spending should

  501
  be separated, so that we know what we are spending on equipment, arms and hardware and what we are spending on other services.
  I recently visited the Property Services Agency—at the beginning of the debate there was talk about housing for the Services—and was greatly impressed by the improved standard not only of the accommodation, but of the layout of the estates. Some of this new accommodation will appeal greatly to Service families. There is the difficulty of having estates which are too large—for example, Rowner. We should not in future have such large estates, with so many people of one profession living together. I should prefer to see much smaller units.
  Cities like Plymouth are extremely short of housing accommodation for ordinary civilians, some of whom have been on housing lists for several years. Therefore, I suggest that a certain number of houses should be built for sale to people who intend to continue in the Services—in other words, to re-engage. This is not a new idea; I have put it forward on other occasions. But it seems sensible that if people intend to re-engage and complete their 22 years' service they should be allowed to buy a house.
  I am very worried—there are not many hon. Members on the Opposition benches at the moment to whom I can put my worries—about the suggested cut of £1,000 million on defence expenditure. Coming from a dockyard town, I am worried that such a cut might affect the workers there if that threat were carried out.
  I should like an assurance about employment in the dockyards. Advertisements have been put in newspapers asking for more people, but if we are to have cuts in the Services, what will happen to the people who are taken on? Will they have to leave their jobs shortly? Some grades are offered wages which are too low. I know many men who have two jobs, or whose wives have to go out to work in the evenings. I understand that there is to be a review of wages paid to dockyard workers. How will that be affected by stage 3?
  My hon. Friend may like to know that since the girl apprentices scheme started at the Royal dockyards there has been
  502
  a competition, which has been won by Rosyth, with Devonport in second place. I shall be entertaining the winners at the House after Christmas. I thank him for agreeing to them entering, because the scheme has been a great success.
  I should like to know what is to happen when we have the Armed Forces pay review in April. At the moment there is an extremely poor relationship between civilian and Service pay. This is one reason why people are not re-engaging.
  I should now like to make my annual plea for the pre-1950 widows. I suppose that this appeal will again fall on deaf ears—perhaps for economic reasons. I have just received a letter dated 10th December from a lady whose husband served on HMS "Repulse". He gave marvellous service, joined up again in the last war, and was demobbed in 1945. He died just a few months ago. His widow is left without a pension after the splendid service that he gave during all those years.
  I should like to pay special tribute to the Royal Marines who have been serving in Ulster; some of them have been to Ulster probably more times than other in our Services. Some troops have been at least twice, and others four times.
  It is essential to get a better understanding and co-ordination with our allies, especially Europe and the United States, so that we may feel reassured that we have some protection in this tense world. And we also want to play our part, in trying to maintain the future peace of the world.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: One of the great difficulties of analysing the United Kingdom's defence position is in trying to understand the factors which have directly and indirectly impinged upon it. It seems clear to me and, I am sure, to hon. Members on both sides of the House that for more than 20 years at least three fundamental factors have impinged upon our thinking and brought about trends in defence that I suspect now alarm the House of Commons and the country.
  The first of those factors is a profound change in our social habits and attitudes which, at different times in the past two decades, have amounted to a social crisis.

  503
  The second factor is the growing generation who have no experience of the meaning of a just war with conventional arms or, apart from news broadcasts and television, of the types of war that we associate with the term "conventional arms".
  The third factor has affected Governments more than the House of Commons. It is well known that in the House we discuss defence matters on approximately six days in the year—two days on the White Paper, one day on each of the Services, and a day such as this on the Supply Estimates. Therefore, the Government in their executive position are affected by this third factor of increasing military costs accelerating to astronomical levels.
  These three factors have impinged greatly on defence policy. Their combination has recently brought about such policies as Willi Brandt's Ostpolitik, less recently our withdrawal from east of Suez, and, more recently, President Nixon's talks in Peking and Moscow. In consequence, we have been lulled into an assumption of security which in reality does not exist.
  We have been brought face to face with reality from our experience in the Middle East. Another reality which we must face is the impending and inevitable withdrawal of more troops from Europe.
  Taking all these matters into account, we have a new political and defence position to assert—namely, that on the paramount issue of the defence of the realm the House of Commons should be united. It does not matter what is said at the party conferences. What matters is what we say here as Members of Parliament when we exercise our constitutional rights. We are faced with the facts of life and must have the courage to say what should be done.
  We should bear in mind our recent history and learn from the trends of the past two decades. We must guard against being lulled into a situation in which we take too much for granted and find that perhaps once more we are not ready to deal with a situation effectively. That does not mean that we should start war-mongering or an arms race. It means considering how best we in the House of Commons can ascertain whether this country is properly defended.
  504
  I believe that at the moment it is not and I have some pertinent statistical facts to show why. Unlike the situation in the United States, the House of Commons is kept horribly misinformed on defence matters and, although the House has tried to provide some remedy for that in the last two or three years through the Select Committee system, that remedy is still in its infancy and does not possess the power to get for the House the information it requires.
  We must look at Europe in the light of recent history, in the light of what can happen in the Middle East and in the light of American intentions. We must ask whether we can withstand a conventional weapons attack, and I believe that the answer to that question at the moment is that we could not stand such an attack in Europe for more than three or four days, or three or four weeks at the most. That raises a most important consideration. In the last few years we have enjoyed what we thought was a state of security beneath the nuclear umbrella. If, as I suggest, we cannot stand a conventional attack, we must consider whether that weakness does not present the threat of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and the corollary of that would be whether there was not also a threat at a later point of the use of strategic nuclear weapons.
  Perhaps I may give some indication of the dilemma we are in. There are three sets of talks going on. First are the European Conference on Security and Co-operation talks; second are the MBFR talks in Vienna; and the third are the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. All three are in some way related to security and defence and of conventional weapons. These talks are completely unco-ordinated.
  A week ago Senator Jackson in Washington, considered to be an authority on defence matters, announced that the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks had come to an impasse. He is reported as proposing as a way out of this deadlock that each side be limited to 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles and no more than 560 submarine-launched missiles. The SALT No. 1 agreement of a year ago allows the United States up to 44 nuclear missile submarines containing 710 launch tubes and the Soviet Union

  505
  up to 62 submarines with 950 launch tubes.
  The arithmetic of that is alarming. The two supreme Powers are using that kind of language about strategic arms. Russia, we know, is developing sophisticated conventional equipment in addition for low-level attack to avoid our detector and interceptor systems. And Europe does not have the fullest co-ordination in defence matters. So, whether we are talking in terms of conventional weapons or strategic weapons, we are falling far behind America and Russia, and the hopes of progress in SALT are fading.
  We in Europe must try to divert our minds from the political machinations of the Common Market. We must cease assuming that we must plan our defence according to where the ball is being played.
  Experience tells us that if they cannot find agreement on economic matters they cannot do so on military matters. We have the situation where France is not a member of NATO and where for political reasons we may at some time be involved in an unholy nuclear marriage with France. But that would not be a solution.
  There is a need for the NATO Powers to remove themselves from the philosophy of the line of defence and to revert to a more mobile position of defence in depth. Such a move would produce financial advantages, flexibility and modern methods of anti-tank warfare such as the use of helicopters. A whole string of other advantages would follow. But for this we need a new European Defence Agency.
  Ponder on the question of Britain's position and contribution. I promised to return to "alarming facts" about our defence position. There are gaps in our communications system and in our radar coverage of a most serious nature. There is considerable delay in the application of the most up-to-date computerised systems of co-ordination. But when it comes to military hardware in the Army, Navy and Air Force equipment, the House might be alarmed to know that 20 years ago the Royal Air Force had 700 jet fighters. At the moment it has about 70. There are no anti-aircraft missiles in our aircraft strike force. Britain has no fighter of any kind under production
  506
  in this country. Indeed, we have to resort to foreign manufacturers for our strike force aircraft production.
  Ten years ago our effective warships numbered 230; at the moment we have about 170. Ten years ago we had five aircraft carriers; now we have one. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred to this position earlier and has done so on previous occasions. He has expressed his concern that we should have only the "Ark Royal". Unless a new policy decision is made, its life is limited. The "Ark Royal" has a squadron of Buccaneer strike aircraft and a squadron of Phantom fighter bombers. It is the only weapon in British hands capable of striking targets beyond 25 miles. That is a dangerous situation for us. I repeat the "Ark Royal" is the only weapon of its sort that we have, the only warship at sea with the capacity to strike a target at 25 miles. I suggest that we should consider these facts with some care.
  What is the effect on Britain of the SALT talks? Russia and America have ignored the first agreement while we have kept ourselves nicely in agreement. In the same way we bend over backwards to keep in agreement with every silly regulation in the Common Market. We have four Polaris submarines. Everybody knows that they are expected to be sufficient until the early 1980s at the latest. But we are not even in a position to introduce the multiple independently targetted re-entry vehicle system of Poseidon. America has the system; Russia has advanced on it.
  In America the work in that area is due to end possibly next year. Unless the Government make a decision we shall be without MIRV. It is a serious matter because, as the Minister knows, the anti-ballistic missile programme was limited by the SALT talks. We had hopes of replacement through the MIRV system. If we need it, a decision should be made early. If there is anxiety about it, then it is the Government's fault because the House of Commons has been kept rather misinformed and lacking in information.
  I stress the importance of this problem to those who presume to be pacifists and who presume that our social and economic future is best enhanced by cutting down on defence expenditures. Our

  507
  social and economic situation has never in our history been enhanced by overindulgence in pacifism. On each occasion that the pacifists have had their way, the House has eventually at some point reasserted itself and saved the day.
  Now, when space and time scales have considerably changed, when we have supersonic flight and pictures can be brought back from Jupiter at the speed of light, science has introduced a new spectrum into political and scientific thinking.
  The House must charge the Government, any Government, to remember that we cannot afford and must not try, on the grounds of protecting our social and economic future, to afford a reduction in arms expenditure. The defence of the realm must come first and when that first charge is met, we can feel secure to get on with the job of earning our living in peace.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Before calling the next speaker, I would point out that time moves on and that a number of hon. Members still wish to contribute. It would be helpful, therefore if speeches could be kept as short as hon. Members feel they can be.
  8.36 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Defence debates always seem overshadowed by events of much greater immediate urgency. Without criticising Mr. Speaker's decision. I have a great deal of sympathy with the application by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) earlier today for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
  The origins of the present economic crisis, brought on by the oil shortage, can be traced to the Labour Government's decision in 1967 to withdraw from the Gulf. Before anyone accuses me of "gunboat" ideas, I hasten to add that I am talking merely about a military presence as visible evidence of our political will to continue to influence events in that part of the world. Without such influence, the Arab rulers despaired of us and reinsured with the Soviets, whose political will was so apparent in
  508
  arming and then rearming the Egyptian and Syrian armies.
  We should pay tribute to the policy of the Government of Iran and of the Shah, who seems to have a very far-sighted policy in regard to security in that neck of the woods.
  The Russians must now be laughing all the way to the Kremlin. They have deprived the capitalist world of its oil without shedding a drop of Russian soldiers' blood. They have found vast markets for their armaments. It is, to say the least, a curious coincidence that their sympathisers among the industrial militants in the United Kingdom simultaneously produce trouble in the mines and the railways just when we are desperately short of oil. The timing is significant. I am not seeing a Red under every bed, but I am seeing enough Reds under beds to stop the sophisticated machinery of modern civilised society—as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) pointed out yesterday.
  In the face of all these facts, and in the face of weakness and confusion in NATO, it is fantastic for the Labour Party to suggest, as they did at their party conference, cutting defence expenditure. The European members of NATO must pull themselves together and give evidence urgently to America of their political will to survive. It is as simple as that. This means greater and not smaller defence expenditure.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) wants, apparently, to equate downwards towards other members of NATO in Europe. I wonder why he thinks it correct for us to level down to Holland and Denmark, for example, rather than that they should perhaps be encouraged, to level up to us.
  My right hon. Friend will not expect the debate to go by without mention of the Harrier. I saw Operation "Sally Forth", the NATO operation in the Firth of Forth, this summer. It was without question the most impressive demonstration of naval power I have ever seen. The belle of the ball was undoubtedly HMS "Ark Royal". I had the pleasure of standing on the deck of one of the guided missile cruisers with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. I saw the Harrier landing

  509
  and taking off from the deck of HMS "Albion", and had the pleasure of whispering in his ear, "Project definition studies, my foot". The thing works perfectly well, as the Government well know, and it has worked perfectly well for years. My right lion. Friend said that he thought the House would understand his announcement today of further postponement of a decision, but I assure him that this side of the House does not understand it at all.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, in replying to the debate, will say something more about recruitment at age 15. The argument seems so simple and straightforward. Many boys do not want to do their additional year at school brought about by the raising of the school leaving age. My right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has overfilled classrooms and not enough teachers. It seems sensible that we should let these boys go sideways into the forces, where they could continue their education while developing the military virtues. If they did not like it after all, they could leave at 18—and if the Services do not put their thumbprint on boys' minds in these formative years, they never will.
  Another point raised in the debate is forces' pay. We must allow forces' pay and allowances to catch up with the phase 3 level now, and not wait until April. It is not sufficient to say to the forces, "Your regular review comes up soon and maybe you will get something in April."
  If my right hon. Friend needs a pretext, there is one in the "unsocial hours" provision of phase 3. Does my right hon. Friend think that the hours spent on the bridge of a coastal minesweeper in a channel gale in mid-winter are unsocial or not? Does he think that patrolling the streets of Bogside on Saturday at midnight constitutes unsocial hours?
  It is not good enough to offer the miners and others payments for unsocial hours while delaying the long-overdue increase in forces' pay. The men in the forces do not go on strike or go slow or operate overtime bans. They do their duty 24 hours a day so that the rest of us can sleep quietly in our beds. They deserve better than they have been getting, and repeated tributes from both sides of the House are not enough.
  510
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon started by saying, correctly, that NATO was the cornerstone of our defence policy, but very soon proceeded to wallow in his ideological obsessions. He criticised Greece for its internal policy, and then accused President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger of "arrogance and petulance". What a way to bolster the cornerstone of our defence! He also referred to the American nuclear umbrella, on which our entire security depends, in terms of, "All power corrupts…".
  Finally, he pays fulsome tribute to our troops in Ulster and asks for additional expenditure on housing for them. These words sound hollow when it is borne in mind that at the Labour Party Conference there was a resolution to cut defence expenditure by £1,000 million.
  Andrew Alexander, who used to report debates for the Daily Telegraph, once wrote,
  "The Tory defence experts, though an amiable lot, cannot be described as the light cavalry of the debate."
  It is not so easy to summarise in such felicitous phrases the few defence Members on the Opposition benches. They comprise hand Standers; round-earthers; pacifists; nuclear disarmers; tight-rope walkers with dockyard constituencies; and one or two honest men such as the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) who, as Shadow Secretary of State, is distinguished by having been absent from the debate from after the first speech.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is meeting Dr. Kissinger tonight at the Hilton.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In that case I entirely withdraw my remarks about the right hon. Gentleman, with the exception of my observation about his being an honest man.
  As I was saying, I am not happy about the Government's defence policy, and the Minister's speech, on such an important occasion, was rather skinny. But the Opposition's views can only be described as grotesque, while the Liberal's policy is non-existent.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

  511
  Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that if he is not part of the light cavalry of debate—perhaps in any event the heavy cavalry are rather more in fashion these days—the pattern of his charger's hooves beat for me an interesting and attractive refrain. Because of the shortage of time I shall not attempt to take up the detailed points that my hon. and gallant Friend has made, and in any case I am not qualified to do so. I wish to touch on a general point which was foreshadowed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who also speaks with great authority on these matters. The point also touches my constituency and therefore I have taken a close interest in it. It has recently been announced that the junior leaders' regiments are to be reorganised and streamlined. Those of us who are acquainted with the euphemisms of public life fear that this means that the regiments will be cut. The junior leaders' regiments are the most admirable institutions. They offer a fine general and trade education for the boys they take in, and perhaps more importantly, from the country's point of view, they provide a useful cadre of potential ncos and long-service soldiers who are inevitably the backbone of any professional army.
  The Minister of Defence has told us with complete candour the sombre state of recruiting. It cannot be right, against this background, that we should be streamlining our junior leaders' regiments.
  I have a particular constituency interest, because a shining example of these junior leaders' regiments is the Sapper Junior Leaders' Regiment, in Old Park Barracks, Dover. I have always had a particular admiration for sappers, who seem to combine all the martial virtues with a high degree of intelligence and technical expertise. This regiment is a fine example of the sappers as a corps. The regiment moved into Dover in 1959 and from that moment established a close relationship with the town and meshed in with the activities of Dover in many ways. I hope to be at the passing-out parade on Saturday. Whether I am received at that parade with enthusiasm or dismay depends on the answer which I extract from my hon. Friend when he concludes the debate.
  512
  Without the raising of the school leaving age it was inevitable to anyone who had studied the matter that the future of the regiments would be called in question. It has been announced that some time after 1975 the junior leaders' regiment is to be transferred to the Royal Engineers Apprentice School at Chepstow an equally fine organisation, also demonstrating the finest virtues of the Corps of Royal Engineers. But the apprentice school at Chepstow can house only 1,000 boys. The junior leaders' regiment at Old Park Barracks, Dover, has a nominal establishment of 630, but over the past three years, with the upsurge of recruiting, it has had between 750 and 800 boys on the books. It stands to reason that the so-called transfer to Chepstow means a cut of one third in the number of junior leaders being produced for the sappers.
  Several questions arise, which I hope will be dealt with in the Minister's reply. First, the education is excellent. So I ask, is it not true that most of these boys are better employed, better educated, between 15 and 16, in these regiments than they would be in their local schools? Secondly, can the Army, with its present recruiting figures, really afford to dispense with this source of good recruits? Finally, is it a very good solution from the point of view of the barracks at Dover. They have been expensively altered and improved for the intake of boys and have facilities which a normal infantry barracks does not have.
  On the other hand, by the very nature of things, junior leaders are not usually married, so that if a normal infantry unit is moved in, an enormous number of married quarters would be needed. I cannot help but feel that this is a highly questionable decision. We have a few more years before it is to be implemented. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned with these matters to bear in mind several points. Could it not be arranged so that a year in a junior leaders' regiment, with, if necessary, appropriate adjustments to the education offered, could count as the equivalent to the last year at school? Would it not be possible, in view of the recruiting figures and the excellent quality of the boys turned out—bearing in mind the contribution they make to the nco and

  513
  long-service cadre—to expand rather than contract these regiments?
  This is perhaps a slightly rash suggestion, since I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is a very determined lady, but if there is any question of the defence budget being inadequate to carry the extra costs—and I appreciate that the type of education offered may be expensive—perhaps part of the cost could be carried on the budget of her Department. The regiment is, in a sense, an educational venture.
  Could the decision not be looked at again from the point of view of Dover, because we have a warm spot in our hearts for our junior leaders' training regiment? It has made a special contribution to life in the town, and the barracks are tailor-made for its requirements. That is not to say that we would not welcome another infantry battalion. Dover is a garrison town and proud of its connections with the Services. But the junior leaders' regiment is a special case. This is a bad decision, not only from the point of view of Dover, which I am proud to represent, but from the point of view of the Army as a whole. It cannot be justified in the light of the sombre figures my right hon. Friend outlined at the start of the debate. I hope therefore that, if we cannot be given some reassurance tonight, at least in the intervening years before 1975 there will be some re-thinking of this small but important problem.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: This debate has been dominated by two themes. The first has been the Arab-Israeli war and the second the state of the NATO Alliance. On the first I would just say that I think we have seen that superior force at the decisive point and combined with the element of surprise is, as usual, a most effective combination. I do not believe that the events in the Middle East have shown that we are particularly deficient in weaponry. On the contrary, dealing with missile equipment, the British Armed Forces compare favourably with many of their counterparts. For example, no one has mentioned the Rapier surface-to-air guided weapon which is coming into service with the Royal Air Force Regiment and the light anti-aircraft units of the Royal Artillery. As a low-level
  514
  anti-aircraft guided weapon it is second to none and is doing well in export markets, particularly in Iran. We should not therefore be deluded into thinking that our own Armed Forces are particulary deficient.
  We have also seen that a citizen force, even after an initial setback, is capable of rapid mobilisation into an effective instrument of war. At a time when our defence budget is subject to increasing financial stringency, I hope that we shall examine the situation closely to see whether we can derive benefits from an increased reliance upon volunteer reservists. The way in which the Israeli Air Force went into action at the concluding stages of the war against the surface-to-air guided weapons on the west bank of the Canal shows that air power is still an effective offensive instrument. Sir Andrew Humphrey, the Commander of Strike Command, in evidence to the Overseas and Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, made some fairly telling points about Strike Command.
  I will make only four requests to my hon. Friend. First, will he try to ensure that the Hawker-Siddeley Hawk aircraft has an armament capability so that it is capable of being used for close air support in addition to training? Secondly, will he ensure that the MRCA does not have a degradation in its STOL capability? It will have a good short-field performance which is extremely important in these days when fixed bases are so vulnerable. Thirdly, will he retain as many Lightnings as possible for the air defence rôle as long as is technically feasible? Fourthly, will he try to speed the replacement of Whirlwind air/sea rescue helicopters at present in service with Sea Kings which have longer range and better endurance?
  In short, it would have been better if the NATO ministerial council had taken less time on the cosmetics of putting a good face upon our relationship with the United States and spent more time in active preparation of the measures necessary to counteract the grave imbalance which Dr. Luns revealed in its force levels vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact. Our own main contribution should be in sea and air power. That was brought home to me this autumn on the NATO Assembly military tour of the northern

  515
  flank. I noted particularly how vulnerable are Denmark and Norway. They have no overseas forces stationed on their soil and no nuclear weapons in time of peace. The imbalance is a grave one, particularly as the Murmansk region on the Kola peninsula is a major Russian base area.
  If my hon. Friends are seeking to make cuts in defence, they could perhaps make them in BAOR by cutting some of the fat off the tail and spending more on naval and air systems to achieve the sort of air mobility and rapid reinforcement capability that we can provide for the flanks of the alliance.
  I am disappointed at the continued procrastination over the Harrier. It is an outstanding aeroplane. The Fleet will need it for its reinforcement rôle on NATO's flanks and if the Fleet is to be effective in interception, strike and reconnaissance into the 1980s when the "Ark Royal" comes out of service. If my hon. Friends are not happy about ordering a Royal Naval version of the aeroplane, they could more than recoup the money from sales of this aircraft to overseas customers. By ordering the Royal Naval version my hon. Friends would have a good foundation for building a more advanced variant of the aeroplane that might commend itself to the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps and, perhaps, to the United States and other air forces as well.
  It has been a worthwhile debate, but I ask my hon. Friends, if they are contemplating cuts, not to make them on naval and air systems that will be important for us in the future.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to say a few words about the security situation in Northern Ireland following a visit early this week.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence said in opening the debate, the campaign has shifted away from the cities to the border areas. The IRA is concentrating on those areas, hoping to pin down our forces away from the cities. My impression from my visit was that we have a better grip on the border areas and the border crossing places than we had a year or six months ago.
  516
  What impressed me were the recent operations to block unapproved roads. Many of us in this House have argued for a year or two that these roads could and should be blocked. This is now happening in several different areas, particularly in the south-west, and is being effective. These are substantial concrete blocks over wide areas which are effectively closing unapproved roads. This is canalising the passage of terrorists through certain areas where we have permanent check points. Forged documents are being used on a large scale, and those who are concerned with these border check points believe that it would help them immeasurably to control the passage of terrorists and the document situation if a system of identity cards were introduced Another suggestion is that since the number plates on cars are frequently changed, the chances of deception in this way might be decreased if the numbers were engraved on the windscreens or rear windows of all motor cars.
  These suggestions require the co-operation of the Republic, and following the Sunningdale talks we can expect this co-operation with the Republic and the Garda and Irish Army in the south. The general security situation has improved in Northern Ireland. But this is an uneasy time. A large section of the population of Northern Ireland is frustrated and fearful, and something could be triggered off very easily at short notice.
  It is important that we have a demonstration that the Republic is in earnest over what was agreed at Sunningdale and that it is prepared to take action south of the border to control the movement of terrorists—and that demonstration should be given soon.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: This has been a thoughtful and probing debate. If one point has become clear, it is that Britain is as dependent upon her relationships with the world as she has ever been. If we are to ensure our survival, let alone our enhanced well-being as a community, a successful foreign policy is indispensable to us. This has been dramatically illustrated by the Middle East crisis and the ensuing fuel problems.
  Tribute has rightly been paid by Members in all parts of the House to the

  517
  Service men in Northern Ireland who have shouldered such a heavy burden in the most difficult circumstances. I endorse all that has been said on this matter.
  Four questions formulated themselves in my mind as I listened to the debate. First, what is it we are defending? Secondly, what are the real threats? Thirdly, what can we afford and how do we obtain value for money? Fourthly, in what context should we approach defence questions?
  On the question "What are we defending?", it seems to me that in a free, open and democratic society it is essential to define this matter if we are to ensure adequate economic priorities for defence programmes and, perhaps even more important, the will and motivation to make them effective. We are not just concerned with protecting impersonal power structures in the West from encroachment by the impersonal power structures of the East. We are concerned with protecting the civilised values which are the basis of our society and the quality of our existence.
  These must involve the principles of human dignity, freedom, social justice, tolerance, democracy and civil rights. These values are under attack increasingly on many fronts in different parts of the world, and all those who care about their preservation have an inescapable responsibility to stand firm.
  We in this House have to recognise that every time we condone or, worse still, directly or indirectly collaborate with oppression in any part of the world we undermine those very values that we most wish to preserve as the basis of our own society. We also encourage polarisation, as the oppressed see no alternative to militant extremism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) forcefully spelled out the origins and purpose of the NATO alliance. I was very young at the time, but I can remember the response in this country to the encroachment across democratic societies of the totalitarianism of Stalin. There was a real crusade to preserve the values which I have just described.
  It seems that we cannot now sweep under the carpet any erosion of those principles in the Western community,
  518
  whether it is happening in Greece, in Portugal or in Turkey. Some Government supporters argue sincerely that this is not our responsibility and that it is up to the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Turks to look to their own affairs. No doubt that is why the Government failed to ally themselves with the Dutch, the Canadians and the Norwegians in the recent pressure which they brought to bear.
  The Opposition disagree with that approach. As we see it, the original purpose of NATO was the collective defence of these qualities. If we are concerned with the external collective defence of these qualities and principles we must be just as much concerned with the internal defence of them within the Western community.
  That does not apply only to our efforts and attitudes in NATO. There is also the fact that every time we seek by arms exports to ally ourselves with the oppressive régime in South Africa we contradict the principles that we say we want to defend. When senior naval officers pay visits to Chile so soon after a reactionary coup in that country, again we introduce confusions and contradictions about our defence objectives. We need a coherent strategy in the philosophy of defence, otherwise scepticism and indifference will increase as inevitably we sink into a morass of relativity when we discuss defence issues.
  My second point concerns the real nature of the threats with which we are confronted. I have mentioned the problem of the erosion of democracy and freedom in the Western community. It also seems extraordinary, in practical defence terms, to believe that régimes which are preoccupied with coercion will be reliable partners should the alliance as a whole come under pressure. That is a point which I have never heard answered convincingly.
  We have also to examine the position of the Soviet Union. It would be irresponsible to ignore the warning signs there. Immediately available in Europe the Soviet Union has 11,000 tanks, 2,000 combat aircraft and 430,000 men. We know that 1,500 of the tanks are of the modern T62 type whose versatility was well demonstrated recently by the Egyptians in the Middle East war. We

  519
  also know of the rapid and dramatic expansion in the Soviet Navy, which has 200 sophisticated naval ships, 600 fast patrol boats, many with missiles, and the largest submarine force in the world. We know, too, that the Russians have been launching new nuclear submarines at the rate of about one a month.
  In trying to analyse what the Russians' objectives may be in this respect, most of us will agree that there are probably no intentions on the part of the Kremlin to invade or to annexe Western Europe. But in the age of the condominium, spheres of influence are all-important. I have few doubts that those within the Kremlin would be very happy if Western Europe were increasingly to fall within the Russian sphere of influence—the Finlandisation, as it has been described, of Western Europe—rather than remain within the American sphere of influence.
  Beyond the Soviet Union there is China. I had the privilege of being a member of the recent all-party delegation to China, led most successfully by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). In our discussions with Chinese leaders and others we were all struck by their constant emphasis on the fact that China had no ambitions to become a super-Power. We were also struck, as the hon. Lady said, by China's preoccupation with the Russian threat. I certainly endorse the hon. Lady's comments about air raid shelters being built everywhere we visited. These were accompanied by slogans encouraging the Chinese people to be prepared for war and for natural calamities, and to work hard for the people. We heard analogies drawn between the Russians today and the Germans in 1939. It was said that if the Chinese were well prepared the Russians might not come.
  We were also interested to hear the comments of the Chinese about the need for caution in the European security conference, because they thought that this was a way, perhaps, of getting the West to lower its guard. Their feeling was that Western defence integration was good as a means to contain the Russian threat. All this is interesting in the context of their position. However, it would be a little short-sighted to believe that
  520
  necessarily China will always forgo ambitions of world super-Power status. The very impetus of her industrial and economic expansion and the population growth—although now somewhat modified—with the need for greater access to world resources may, even if her present leaders genuinely want to avoid this, lead her inescapably in that direction.
  When considering real threats we have also to consider the increased pressure on scarce world resources, coupled with the world population explosion. I have often remarked that in the developing countries at present unemployment rates are already in excess of 30 per cent. We know that by 1980 there will be 225 million more people of working age in those countries. That cannot be prevented; they have already been born. This must mean increasing instability in the world. We have to be honest with ourselves and the country. Unless we intend to deploy our military and technological hardware in suppressing the majority of the world's population, in keeping it at bay and preserving our disproportionate advantage in terms of access to scarce world resources, we must come to terms with this new development and quickly.
  There is another threat about which we do not talk often enough, although it has been mentioned in this debate. We should be unrealistic not to recognise it. I refer to the problem of social unrest, subversion, modern terrorist techniques and new methods of urban guerrilla warfare. This is particularly macabre when we see these techniques leap over the barriers of the nuclear stalemate which has existed for two decades. It is particularly sinister when we realise that we live in an age when crude bacteriological, chemical and nuclear weapons are not an impossibility, and we have to worry about not only political forces which might gain access to such weapons but large international crime syndicates. We must consider all these points very carefully. But we have to ask ourselves, what can we afford as a nation? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon laid emphasis on this point in his opening remarks. Defence policy in a country such as ours has to be tailored to what we can afford. It would be indefensible and counterproductive to carry a defence burden so

  521
  large that it undermined our ability to build a society worth protecting.
  There have been interesting suggestions in the debate about how economies might be achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to rationalisation in training, and that is something which deserves attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about the economies still to come from co-operation within the Euro-Group, and that, again is something at which we must look very closely. It was interesting to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite also making the point that there is room for greater equality in burden sharing within the alliance as a whole, particularly among the European Powers.
  We have to appreciate the significance of the military industrial complex as it has emerged, which was well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) in the recent Public Accounts Committee debate, and we must recognise the dangers of the self-generating momentum within it. Therefore we have constantly to keep it under a critical eye, and to ensure at all times that we are getting value for money. I am sure that those of us who do not serve on the Select Committee would like to pay our respects to those who do for the invaluable function which they are fulfilling in this context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) drew attention to the confluence of the peak of expenditure which we might expect, with so many projects in the melting pot and about to emerge, such as the MRCA, the Harrier, through-deck carriers, Fleet submarines, Lance tactical nuclear weapons and the Sea Wolf. It is intriguing to us on this side of the House that so many of these projects may reach a peak at the same time. There is great need for a far clearer indication of the Government's priorities, because they cannot follow all these through at one and the same time.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend add the various requests of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who is absent, who wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds?
  Mr. Judd: I certainly would not add them, but if the Government wish to do so it is up to them. But we on this side of the House believe that the delay in coming to a decision about the Harrier is becoming intolerable. We feel that we owe it to the men of the Fleet Air Arm that, as soon as possible—it should have been done long ago—they should have a clear indication of what the Government intend to do, because they need to be able to think with certainty about then-future. Let us have a decision, whatever it is, at the first possible moment.
  We must also examine the suitability of our defence forces to meet the real dangers which I have described—for example, their suitability to cope with internal as well as external threats, with unorthodox as well as orthodox dangers within the context of a free and democratic society, their adaptability in protecting oil rigs, fishing fleets or survey teams, their ability to contribution to international policing operations where appropriate.
  In this connection, it is necessary to ask whether much of modern military and naval technology is in danger of becoming muscle-bound. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) made this point very effectively. We have to learn the lessons of the Middle East war.
  In naval policy, I sometimes wonder whether we are beginning to find ourselves concentrating on too many individual boffin showpieces, as it were, at the expense of overall versatility and an overall viable force. It was interesting to hear the comments of the Minister of State on future policy about ships operating in groups. I do not think that that completely overcomes the doubt which exists, and this is something at which we must look very critically in the light of recent international experience.
  I should like to say one or two words about defence policy and defence expenditure. Obviously, we have to work within alliances. In our post-imperial era, it would be impossible, even if we wanted to do so, to police our own interests all over the world alone.
  I argue that the story of the NATO alliance since the late 1940s has been one of success in maintaining relative stability. The rationalisation of the Western and

  523
  Eastern communities into the NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact is the key to any chance of progress in talks on mutual and balanced force reductions and a meaningful implementation of détente.
  The key to the power balance which has been established, whether we like it or not—some of my hon. Friends have sincere and genuine misgivings about it—seems to be related to the inextricable inter-relationship of the American deterrent and the integrated American and European land forces on the European continent. We can no doubt understand the domestic pressures that may have developed in the United States, if need be, for a unilateral reduced US presence in Europe. But we must put two points to our colleagues in the United States.
  First, they must ask themselves how a unilateral withdrawal by America will affect the willingness of the Russians to make significant or meaningful concessions in the context of mutual and balanced force reductions. It would surely make a nonsense of all that is under way in Vienna at the moment.
  The second point that we must make is that a unilateral American withdrawal would probably lead to increased emphasis on an independent European defence force, perhaps with its own deterrent. Some of us would at least argue that this would have an acute unbalancing impact on the international situation as it now stands.
  While making that point, I believe that we should mention the British deterrent. If we accept the analysis that I have just indicated, there does not seem to be a case for a new generation of a British so-called independent nuclear deterrent. We should be careful to avoid drifting into such a commitment. In any case, in the context of the SALT talks the Russians have made it perfectly clear that in their view any increase in our nuclear capability in this respect would be regarded as an increase in the United States capability. We must treat that point seriously.
  There is much cynicism—perhaps in this House as well as outside—about the cause of disarmament. But surely effective policed disarmament is still self-evidently the best form of defence, especially with the development of chemical, biological and even crude nuclear
  524
  weapons which might be used in a guerrilla context. Lestor Pearson, the previous Canadian Prime Minister, once commented that we prepare for war like prodigious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies.
  We must not despair on this course. We should use the new realities as an incentive for unceasing efforts on the disarmament front. I suggest that to give up would amount to criminal neglect of the interests of those whom we claim to represent.
  Similarly, the Middle East and the crisis in world resources have demonstrated more than ever the relevance of an international security agency with teeth if this could but be established. This would clearly be as much in the interests of the super-Powers, who can still be drawn into confrontation against their better judgment, as in the interests of the weak who need guaranteed access, for example, to their fair share of limited world resources.
  I should like to commend something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. If we are concerned about world stability and peace in future, we should already be debating in some depth in this House our policy at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.
  Meanwhile—here I want to say something which may be regarded by some hon. Members, even on this side of the House, as a little contentious—we must recognise, in the age of guerrilla warfare and terrorist techniques, the importance of intelligence operations in defence policy. But in our kind of democratic society we must be careful about potential sinister developments in any strong emphasis on intelligence. We must be clear about the way in which we at all times guarantee the political accountability of the intelligence machine.
  There are two other matters that I shall mention briefly. First, in our concern about achieving value for money in our defence programme and defence expenditure, we must remember the large body of civilian industrial and non-industrial staff which is employed directly by the Ministry of Defence. I suggest that in the midst of our grave energy crisis there is an urgent need to utilise

  525
  a growing proportion of our research and development programme in an onslaught on the energy crisis itself. There must be research into alternative sources of power and less energy-intensive means of production. In other words, we must consider relevant technology for survival, which is more intimately related to the concept of defence than might at first seem obvious.
  Second, there are large civilian establishments employing considerable numbers of industrial and non-industrial staff. They include the naval dockyards. At a time when hon. Members on both sides of the House like, at times, to moralise about the responsibility of industry for devising up-to-date techniques in industrial relations and management, it seems extraordinary that we should tolerate so much antiquated and thoroughly archaic organisation in the naval dockyards. They are large units of industrial activity which are directly under Government responsibility. It seems that there is an urgent need for a sensible and competitive pay structure for all civilian employees, with an emphasis on decent basic pay.
  There is a need to revise drastically, if not to eliminate, the incentive schemes which, with their present dependence on individual incentives, are inappropriate for the sort of work that is undertaken. There is also a need for decentralisation of management control, with far more responsibility delegated to individual yards and units for running their own affairs, and for negotiation on the spot between workers and local management, which should have real authority.
  We should endeavour to achieve significant economies by drastically pruning all unnecessary, expensive and top-heavy bureaucratic overheads in the yards themselves, at Bath and at the Ministry of Defence, Civil Service Department and the Treasury at Whitehall level. They serve to put an unfair burden on productive management and workers in the front line. It is important that we should have a determined drive to increase revenue to the defence budget by utilising fully their capital equipment and manpower. If necessary, that could be done by operating a 24-hour day on a shift basis and taking on far more engineering work, for which the yards are ideally suited for outside industry,
  526
  especially the public services and public enterprises.
  A good deal of attention has been paid by hon. Members from both sides of the House to the downturn in recruiting for all three Services. Naturally, this is not a matter for partisan point scoring. It is a matter that concerns us all.
  Mr. Maclennan: It used to be.
  Mr. Judd: It may have been, but it is a tradition which we shall not continue whilst in Opposition. We are proud that when in Government we were able to introduce the military salary, which did so much to combat problems of recruiting. It is tremendously important that the value of that salary should be maintained. It is not only the military salary which should concern us, but the other conditions of service. I re-emphasise what has been said about housing. We must ensure that Service men who want a home of their own are given every possible support to purchase it. Those who, having completed their period of service, want to establish a home for themselves in civilian life should have a real opportunity to do so. It seems completely unacceptable that men and their families who have served the nation should be confronted with all the insecurity and difficulty of trying to find a home of their own when they leave the Service.
  The tragic cases should not be forgotten, either. I refer to the stories, of broken families, with which I am sure many hon. Members, like myself, are familiar. The House has a responsibility in this respect, because the family has a positive contribution to make to the effectiveness of the Service man, and therefore we encourage the feeling of family involvement in many ways in the Services. We encourage the concept of providing housing for Service men near their work. If a family breaks under pressure, with all the tragedy inherent in that situation, we cannot simply discard the wife and children. We in this House have a heavy responsibility to ensure that their needs are met. There are too many tragic cases falling into this category.
  We must also recognise the special welfare problems that still exist within the Services, because there is much in

  527
  Service life that will always involve more difficulties and tensions than are to be found in civilian life. Within the forces we must provide welfare services which are as effective as possible.
  The Opposition join wholeheartedly with the Government in paying unlimited tribute to the men and women of our Services for the burden they carry on our behalf, not least in Northern Ireland, and in wishing them all success in the duties which we continue to ask them to undertake on behalf of the British nation.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): This has been a useful debate, and many hon. Members have made valuable contributions. Unfortunately, these contributions have not come from the Liberal Members, who have not attended the debate. I shall endeavour to reply to as many of the points raised as I can and if I miss any I hope that hon. Members will forgive me, but I shall write to them in reply.
  The debate has been wide ranging, but I begin by saying something about the Service for which I am responsible—the Royal Air Force. I start with one aspect of the RAF's activities which does not normally figure largely in the public mind but of which we can all be very proud. I refer to the numerous operations carried out for the relief of disasters and emergencies of all kinds in many parts of the world. The increasing frequency of these operations and their scale are perhaps not generally appreciated. There has been hardly a month this year in which RAF aircraft were not engaged somewhere in the world in operations of this kind. I mention three of them to illustrate their diversity.
  In March, four Hercules aircraft were deployed to Nepal where, with the aid of air dispatchers from the Royal Corps of Transport, they dropped emergency food supplies to people in remote areas severely affected by a succession of failed harvests. Nearly 2,000 tons of food were dropped in 10 different areas. The skill with which this technically very difficult task was carried out earned many congratulations, and our long association with the Gurkhas of Nepal made it an
  528
  operation which we were particularly proud to carry out.
  In July and August, Hercules aircraft were engaged in another and very different relief operation in West Africa helping to bring food to the drought-stricken Sahel Zone. Flying long sorties from Dakar, RAF aircraft lifted more than 2,400 tons of food to destinations in Mali. I pass over other operations, such as those in Sudan and, for flood relief, in Pakistan, in order to come to a major operation which is going on at this moment. This is the United Nations operation to exchange Bangladesh and Pakistan citizens following the Delhi agreement of 28th August. This operation will be the largest planned transfer of populations in history and a very important part is being played by RAF Britannia aircraft, which are maintaining daily round trips between Pakistan and Bangladesh. These operations involve round trips of about 1,700 miles each day by each aircraft, and as at this morning over 13,000 people had been carried by the RAF.
  Although not strictly a relief operation, the support the RAF has given to the United Nations in connection with the Middle East operation has been of great importance. Within hours of the United Nations request of 25th October to assist in the movement of peacekeeping forces, the Royal Air Force had begun an airlift of Austrian, Finnish and Swedish contingents from Cyprus to Cairo. This airlift was provided free of charge and was completed on 30th October, after 44 aircraft sorties had carried a total of 753 men, 56 vehicles and trailers and almost 428,000 lb of other freight. A generous letter of appreciation was received from the Secretary-General.
  My object in drawing the attention of the House to these operations is not simply to praise the Royal Air Force, although it is a Service I have come greatly to admire in my short period as Under-Secretary of State. Nor is it to seek praise of the Government's action in helping out in these emergencies, because I am sure that any Government, of whatever complexion, would have done the same. My object is to illustrate and emphasise the increasingly valuable rôle that the Services play in peace time in support of the civil community. While

  529
  it remains true that their primary purpose is to prevent war, the equipment, training and, perhaps above all, the discipline and professionalism of our Services makes them uniquely valuable in a wide range of essentially civil rôles, and at a time when the cost of defence presses heavily on every country, not least on this one, this aspect deserves emphasis.
  But the RAF spends much of its time ensuring that it can properly fulfil its operational rôle. There is one aspect of this training which concerns many hon. Members—we recently had an Adjournment debate about it—and that is low flying. It is no secret that military aircraft undertake low-level training over many parts of rural Britain and that this type of activity has been increasing in recent years.
  To the general public this activity is clearly one of the more obtrusive forms of training practised by the Armed Forces. We carry on this low-level training not because we take pleasure in inflicting noise on rural communities but because it is operationally essential. All the world's major air forces recognise the importance of low-level capability in the attack rôle, though some are more advanced than others in developing such a capability.
  As the performance of the Russian-manufactured equipment in Vietnam and in the Middle East wars has demonstrated—hon. Members have referred to this tonight—a sophisticated air defence system can inflict heavy losses on defensive aircraft, particularly at medium altitude. But there is weakness in ground-based radar systems. It is difficult for them to pick up and track fast-moving aircraft which are travelling close to the ground and taking advantage of any cover provided by natural features of the landscape. This gap in capability substantially reduces the possibility of a successful missile-firing against such aircraft.
  To meet the requirement of this tactical concept we must obviously have aircraft capable of undertaking low-level sorties at considerable speed. It is not enough even to have the aircraft; we also need crews fully trained in the very special techniques involved in low-level operations. Even when aircrew are trained and assigned to a squadron, it is essential
  530
  for them to go on practising their skills. Without this constant practice, it would be impossible for even the most experienced pilot to maintain the high level of proficiency required.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that an extensive low-level training programme is vital to the operational efficiency of the RAF. At the same time, however, we do everything possible to ensure that this programme is conducted so as to cause the minimum of disturbance to the general public, and to this end we keep the whole subject under continuing review. I regret the inconvenience that we must nevertheless cause.
  Hon. Members have rightly been concerned with the Middle East War and the lessons to be learned from it, particularly in air defence. There are obvious differences in terrain and weather between Europe and the Middle East, but any lessons to be learned by our forces from the recent conflict are being carefully studied. The exercise is complex, and it will be some time before firm conclusions can be drawn about the relevance of the war to our own capabilities and our future concepts.
  Turning to air defence, our forces already have a range of missiles well suited to their needs, and further missiles such as the Rapier and Blowpipe are in prospect. Consideration of our air defences cannot be confined, of course, to missiles, because aircraft can be accounted for by other aircraft as well as by ground-to-air missiles. So far as the defence of the United Kingdom is concerned, we are examining how our existing and planned air defence may be improved.
  While on this subject, however, it is perhaps relevant for me to be able to announce that the transfer to the Royal Air Force of the LI building at West Drayton will be substantially finished before Christmas. This will represent the effective completion of the Linesman system. Some of the facilities for the building have already been handed over to Strike Command. The forthcoming transfers will enable the command to work up the system to full operational efficiency during 1974.
  The building will be known as the Air Defence Data Centre and will provide automated collection, collation and dissemination

  531
  of information from the Linesman and other radars. It will have links with the NATO early warning system in Western Europe and will significantly improve the effectiveness of our air defences. As with any military facility, the air defences ground environment system needs to be kept up to date. Improvements are already in hand or are being planned, giving measures which will enhance the ability of this system to survive in the event of conventional attack on military targets.
  Hon. Members have naturally been concerned about the amount of fuel that the Armed Forces consume in the present fuel shortage. Like the rest of the community, the Services were asked on 24th October to exercise voluntary restraint. On 14th November, more detailed instructions were issued, the aim of which was to achieve an economy of fuel of about 10 per cent., but we could not simply cut all consumption by 10 per cent. There are some areas in which it would not be right to make any cuts—operations in Northern Ireland are an obvious example. We also felt it right to exempt some other essential operations and training. The low-flying training for the RAF about which I have spoken is essential. As it is, we fly no more than is necessary for this training. Therefore, scope for reduction is very limited.
  I do not want to go into details about the exercises and activities which have been specifically curtailed or cancelled, but I assure the House that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the Armed Forces make the maximum contribution to the conservation of supplies of fuel and power that is consistent with the need to maintain their operational capability and standards of efficiency and safety.
  Mr. John Morris: Is the figure of saving aimed at 10 per cent. on average, or is it somewhat less, as I understand from what the Minister said?
  Mr. Kershaw: It is 10 per cent. compared with a relevant period before—say last year or last month, as the case may be. We intend to try to save that overall, but some activities are entirely exempted from it.
  532
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) complained about our attitude towards Greece. Her Majesty's Government have always made it clear that we wish for a return to democracy in Greece. Indeed, at this Box, I have said as much a number of times. The Greek Government repeat that they also wish to achieve that. But I respectfully suggest that no good will come to the freedom and peace which NATO is pledged to defend by trying to freeze Greece out of NATO, as the Labour Party seems to be trying to do.
  Certainly, no good will come of noisy and heated squabbles in public about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, drawing no doubt on his experience with the Labour Party, may think that such squabbles are one of the glories of democracy, to use his own words, but in international politics, such polemics are apt not to be helpful. Nor do I think it appropriate, within the forum of NATO, to discuss the internal affairs of countries which are members of it. Greece occupies, as has been said tonight, a very special geographical place in NATO which is important.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said that our defence is not merely about protecting bases; it is also about protecting democracy and our moral values. Of course I agree. The hon. Member will find that if we lose our bases our democracy and moral values will not last very long afterwards.
  Mr. Judd: How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the argument that, by condoning suppression and abuse of freedom in Greece or any other member country of NATO, we are playing into the hands of those extremists who want to subvert the alliance from within?
  Mr. Kershaw: We are not condoning oppression and mis-government any more than the hon. Gentleman did when he sat on the Government side of the House. We deplore it. We have very good reasons, for our own purposes and for the purposes of freedom and democracy, to get on with the Government who are in Greece at present.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the nuclear alert. He made some rather serious charges about lack of

  533
  consultation by the United States in putting its forces on a national alert during the Middle East crisis. He was dissatisfied with the method of consultation, both in NATO and nationally. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have already made the position clear on both points. But, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the events of the past months do disclose some weaknesses, and NATO will be looking at its consultation procedures—not, I hope, in a spirit of recrimination but in the constructive manner we saw at the recent meetings in Brussels.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West asked about the helicopters for South Africa. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the matter. These helicopters are being supplied in accordance with our legal obligations, which were defined by the Law Officers in the White Paper of February 1971 as including.
  "… such number of Westland Wasp helicopters as is necessary to equip the three antisubmarine frigates supplied under the sea routes agreement with their initial complement (together with reserves) of Westland Wasp helicopters."
  That is the legal obligation which we undertook. We have talked about it before in this House.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) discussed the mutual balanced force reductions. I was asked whether it was true that the forces of Western European countries, including our own, are to be excluded from the reductions negotiated in the talks on MBFR in the first instance. Although my right hon. Friend said today that it would not be prudent for details of these delicate negotiations to be revealed and discussed today in the debate, I can give the House an assurance that such reductions of our own forces are not excluded, although our view is that, in the first stage, we should look for reductions confined to the forces of the United States and the Soviet Union.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the BAOR units in Northern Ireland. It has been necessary to deploy from BAOR, and at present six major units of infantry, two armoured reconnaisance
  534
  units and an engineering squadron are serving four-month emergency tours in Northern Ireland. These deployments have been made in consultation with our allies, for whose understanding we are grateful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has had to leave to go back to the WEU meeting in Paris, made a characteristically interesting and well-informed speech.
  Mr. Dalyell: Jolly ill-informed.
  Mr. Kershaw: No doubt the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is a judge of that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aidershot was primarily interested, as was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, in what we are to do about WEU and the Euro-group. We have read with particular interest M. Jobert's interesting and important speech, and welcome in particular his emphasis on the importance of the Atlantic alliance for our common defence.
  We naturally do not rule out a role for WEU in future, but we see that it has drawbacks. It does not, for example, include all the European members of the alliance in its membership—it excludes the flank countries—and we need to take care that it does not cut across the work of the Euro-group, to which we are firmly committed.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) were all concerned that we should save money by unified training. We have taken note of what the Committee said about this. We have had the Jarrett Report about the medical services, which we are still studying and hope to implement in due course. We are studying how the basic training of non-specialist trades can be made the same in each Service. We are examining the problems of helicopter pilots, drivers, cooks, pay clerks, clerical staff, vehicle mechanics, and so on. This is an important matter, which is being examined carefully. We hope to be able to make a reduction in expenditure.

  535
  It would, of course, be logical for us to standardise on procurement and equipment in NATO. We are all fighting the same war in the same way and should have the same kind of weapons. It is difficult to get individual nations to give up their share of manufacturing and to put people out of work, along with the other things which are necessary for such sharing. Some progress has been made and there is a committee within NATO monitoring these things and making suggestions.
  There is most hope in the larger projects such as the Jaguar, the MRCA and the battle tank and ammunitions and guns. In these spheres we have made a fair amount of progress. I hope we shall make more.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye talked about nuclear weapons. The Government have taken note of his Committee's report on this subject and have studied it with great interest. For the reasons explained by the Secretary of State in his oral evidence published with the report, we cannot comment on the detailed arguments of the report or its recommendations for the future. The Government are satisfied that Polaris provides us with a fully effective nuclear deterrent. We do not share the views of the hon, Member for Portsmouth, West about that. Obviously we must keep the position continuously under review and come to the necessary decisions in due course about what improvements shall be made and when.
  A number of hon. Members were bothered about peaking in expenditure on various expensive projects at the same time. This is something we must watch closely. If they all came together we would find ourselves in a mess. We have thought of that, and the programme is to that extent flexible, so that we will, I hope, be able to avoid such dangers.
  Sir H. Harrison: Will my hon. Friend say something about the phasing of these projects in the next White Paper?
  Mr. Kershaw: I cannot anticipate my right hon. and noble Friend's White Paper, which will be out before long. Incidentally, my hon. and gallant Friend has said that he would like a good deal more information in White Papers, and he compares ours unfavourably with those
  536
  produced by the Americans and Germans. The comparison is not exactly apt. Our White Paper is meant to be for one year and is a rather succinct account of proposals, whereas in America and Germany there are different habits. There are different considerations, security and industrial confidence among them. Our practice, which has been expanded, is suitable for us.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked about HMS "Vulcan". We do intend to continue with our study of an improved version of the Swiftsure nuclear-powered submarine. I hope that answers his question from a constituency point of view.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not quite cleared up the doubt. Will he say whether the second phase is going ahead? It is perhaps too early to give a categorical answer, but there is some ambiguity. I appreciate that the present programme will go ahead for some years, but it is about the second phase that there is doubt.
  Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy will write to the hon. Gentleman to clear up any ambiguity for which I may be responsible, for which I apologise.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth rightly emphasised the importance of pay and housing. My right hon. Friend, in opening, made clear that we appreciate the importance of those matters and will consider them in the spring. He also mentioned, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), the 15-year-olds. We have not closed our minds to the possibility of recruiting 15-year-olds and giving them what amounts to a final year's schooling before they enter full military service. That will be costly and, generally speaking, the Services have never recruited boys before the minimum school leaving age. We have yet to make sure that we can provide them with the education that they would otherwise get in school. At the end of this year we shall have seen the effect on the Forces of the raising of the school leaving age, and I think that we should wait until then

  537
  before coming to a decision. My hon. Friends are studying this question carefully and agree on its importance.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester asked three questions. He wanted to know what is happening to Lulworth. I cannot tell him that. We are still open to representations, and, as my right hon. Friend said, we hope to publish a statement after Christmas, when I understand that there will be a debate. The reduction in size of the Ministry of Defence and the integration of trade training are under constant review.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) thought that the lesson of the Middle East was that in terms of weaponry Russia is far ahead. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) that the hon. Member for Coventry, North is too alarmist. He has no cause to be despondent, nor should he reproach the Government for not frantically galloping off in every direction in an attempt to cure the situation. I am glad that the foolish policy of a cut of £1,000 million was repudiated by him. I do not accept the suggestion that NATO is nearly powerless. Of course the Eastern bloc is stronger than we are, but we can inflict unacceptable damage on it. We no longer rely on a trip-wire; we now have a flexible response.
  I assure my hon. Friends who are concerned about anti-tank missiles that we have a very good one—in fact, several of different types, and research into smaller types and others is going on energetically. I also agree about the importance of electronic counter-measures and we are devoting much effort to them.
  I very much enjoyed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, but in the matter of burden sharing we have nothing with which to reproach ourselves. We have set a good example to our European allies. I assure my hon. Friend, from good information,
  538
  that the United States does not reproach us in this matter of sharing the burden with it.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) that the Royal Navy has its fuel and has in hand the necessary organisation to deal with the fuel shortage. I am sorry that I have been unable to answer all the questions, but I hope that the House has enjoyed the debate as much as I have.
  Mr. Dalyell: Since a Liberal Member has now joined us at the last moment in this debate, may we have a promise that a feasibility study on the military consequences of a dam across the Channel will be undertaken?
  Mr. Kershaw: I shall look into that possibility. I am sorry that I did not see the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He came here so recently that I did not recognise him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,508,716,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 11, for the year ending on 31st March 1975.

DEFENCE
Resolved,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Ian Gilmour.]
Dr. Alan Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this order debatable?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) is too late in any case. I put clearly to the House earlier whether by agreement these two matters could be taken together. Since that was agreed by the House, it is for the convenience of the House that the second matter should not be debated.
Dr. Glyn: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUCCESSOR PARISHES)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) to move his Motion, I must inform the House that I have not selected the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel).
10.2 p.m.
Mr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Successor Parishes) (No. 2) Order 1973 (SX, 1973, No. 1939), dated 16th November 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be annulled.
A number of my hon. Friends and I feel that this order is inconsistent in that the wrong decision has been taken. We are seeking to annul the order because it creates considerable injustice throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Before I develop this matter in detail, I wonder whether we can clarify one point in regard to by-elections which may be pending in urban districts or rural districts which will become successor parish councils. As I understand the order, by-elections will have to be held within a specified period after authorities have received successor parish council status. Does this mean that by-elections will have to be held on the old register in February in the depth of winter? If that is the case, this will surely cause a great deal of inconvenience. I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Development will be able to help us on this point and will be able to say that those elections can be held later in the year, perhaps until May when a number of other by-elections will have to be held.
I am in a slightly difficult position in seeking to annul this order tonight, because in some respects I am grateful for what the Minister has done. We were disappointed in June, when he published his list of successor parish councils, to see that list was so restricted. We were pleased that he saw fit to ask the Boundary Commission to look again at the situation. However, the order shows that four out of five urban districts in my constituency have been granted
540
successor parish council status. We should like to know why the other one was omitted from the list. Therefore, it would appear that the order is inconsistent and unjust.
Let me take a specific example of the Colne Valley urban district which applied for successor parish council status. I have been carefully through the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a letter dated 22nd January 1973. It was these guidelines that had to be satisfied if successor parish status was to be granted. I shall remind the House of these five points, because I do approach this matter not from an emotional point of view but from the point of view of fact and logic.
The first point is numbered 2(a) and it relates to size. The Secretary of State gives the guidance that many towns with populations of the order of 10,000 to 20,000 as well as those below this range might well qualify. He makes the point that these are not exact figures, though he accepts that few very much over this size will be given parish council status.
When I look at the case of Colne Valley I find that, true enough, it is just over the 20,000 mark. The population is 21,170. But even that is unjust, because we have the neighbouring councils of Saddleworth, with a population of 20,680, and Holmfirth, with a population of 19,370, which is growing all the time, when the population of Colne Valley is static. Looking at the West Yorkshire area, I see Ilkley with a population of 21,990. I then look at the population of other parishes mentioned in the order, and I find towns such as Bishop's Stortford with 22,000, Harpenden with 24,000, Kendal with 21,000 and Winsford with nearly 25,000. By any standard, although Colne Valley is above the 20,000 population range it is well below others which have been given successor parish status and below at least one in the neighbouring area of West Yorkshire. Size cannot be counted as an argument against the area.
The next criterion, numbered 2(b), says that the proportion of the district has to be below a certain ratio. This ratio is 1 to 5. If the town comprises more than one-fifth of the population of the district it will not normally qualify for separate parish council status. I repeat that the

541
population of Colne Valley is 21,170 whereas the population of Kirk Lees is 368,869. Here again the order does not cover one application where the criterion laid down by the Secretary of State has been met.
Next I come to the strongest point, the criterion numbered 2(c), which refers to the separate identity of the town. If the right hon. Gentleman has been to Colne Valley he will know the topography. It is a valley running deep into the Pennines with high hills on both sides. It leads down to Huddersfield. It is an area of chapels and chimneys and it is famous for its wool textile industry. It has a very independent historical background. It is the land of the Luddites and is very strong in its political history. It formed one of the earliest Labour parties. Tom Mann fought the seat in 1895. Victor Grayson was elected in 1907. It has an historical identity of its own and is very much separate from neighbouring towns and areas. Here again the order is not consistent.
I move, then, to the criterion numbered 2(d) which is the comparability with other districts and makes the point that it should be physically separated. I concede that this area, in two of its wards, joins up with the neighbouring town of Huddersfield. But so what? Let us consider other towns in the order. Two of them, Saddleworth and Kirkburton, are joined respectively to Oldham and Huddersfield. Once again there is a feeling of injustice about the lack of logic in the order.
I need not talk about the feeling locally. All three political parties support it. There was a unanimous feeling among the councillors whom I met last Thursday, and a petition has been sent to the Department of the Environment on this matter. Even if one accepts that the local people feel strongly about the matter, one may say that they are wrong; but one looks for even more august evidence.
Commission for England. In July 1962, in proposals for the West Yorkshire special review area, the proposal was for the amalgamation of the Colne Valley district with the Meltham Urban District.
One turns to the Local Government The Boundary Commission, which visited the area in 1962, said:
542
"Both the districts which the Commission propose in this group would comprise a number of scattered settlements in a wide rural setting, and the Commission think that it would be better if they were constituted as rural districts, which would enable each settlement to have its local parish council."
That was the position in 1962. It has not changed one iota. There has been very little development in the area. We feel very strongly that the order is based on recommendations which have not been examined sufficiently. That is why we seek to move its annulment.
But that is not the whole story. The Minister, who knows the area, obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He clearly felt so sure about it that on 26th November he wrote to me as follows:
"As you probably know, we have been considering the Local Government Boundary Commission's further recommendations for the constitution of successor parishes from small existing boroughs and urban districts. You will be glad to know that he Commission has recommended that Colne Valley, about which I know you are concerned, should be a parish."
Here we had the Minister accepting the logic and fairness of the position before the order is published, and he was writing to me saying that we should have parish council status. Yet on the same day he was publishing the order which we are seeking to annul, which does not include it.
I plead with the Minister on this matter. He has fallen into the trap. He has written and signed the letter. He is an honourable man and would want to stand by his word. He told me that we were to have parish council status. We feel very strongly that he should honour his pledge given in that letter of 26th November.
We seek to annul the order because it is unfair. I have taken just one specific example to show how unfair it is. It is unjust. That is why a number of my hon. Friends and myself will press our objections to it.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak on the order. I hope, therefore, that those who catch my eye will make reasonably short speeches.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Hiley: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David

543
Clark) succeeded in getting successor status for four out of five of his local authorities. My score was nought out of three. Much as I should like to respond to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should be brief, I suppose that I ought to be entitled to about half an hour in order to attempt to convince my right hon. Friend the Minister that justice has not been done to my part of the world.
It is inevitable that those concerned closely with local authorities and who have failed in this matter should be disappointed with the results. I have three particularly forward-looking local authorities, and I share their disappointment that they—all of them—have been passed over. I do not deny for one moment that this is largely a question of prestige. It enters into the consideration of most people and particularly those who have served on local authorities for a long time. But in this day and age of lowering standards, surely it would be a good thing for us to encourage those local authorities which tend to set their sights higher than is probably the general tendency.
Many fear that the reorganisation scheme will diminish interest in local affairs, and I share that view. But if we could persuade the Minister to look again at some of his decisions and to encourage greater interest in local affairs, we might redress the balance to some extent.
Tonight in the borough of Pudsey, two long-standing members of the council have been honoured by having the freedom of Pudsey conferred upon them. Is that sort of ceremony to stop? All men and women should be encouraged to take a greater interest in their local affairs, but I fear that by denying us successor status this reorganisation scheme will make that more difficult in districts such as mine. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can suggest any steps which might be taken to retain or increase the interest in local affairs and in the traditions of local authorities, which many people have served for so long.
I believe that public funds should be provided to encourage voluntary bodies within local authorities to do something to maintain their traditions. This is tremendously important. While I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley in what he said, because
544
I realise that one of the greatest difficulties of Members of Parliament is to persuade constituents that there must be a dividing line somewhere, although it may not always be applied with scrupulous fairness, I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider doing what he can to maintain the traditions of local authorities.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. David Ginsburg: I wish to support the general line of argument which has been developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). I shall not go into generalities, because my hon. Friend has covered the points and the Minister is familiar with them.
I have been asked to put in a good word on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who cannot be with us this evening. He is involved within his constituency with the urban district councils of Elland and Sowerby, which have been left out of the order which the Minister has made and to which the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has deployed also apply.
I wish to press the case of one local government unit in my constituency—the municipal borough of Ossett—with which some of my colleagues are familiar, which has inexplicably been left out of the order which we are considering. The Minister knows the area and was helpful to it not very long ago. It has a strong sense of local identity and has always opted for the maximum degree of independence within our local government structure. It is on record that Ossett put in its plea for parish council status early on, has reiterated it over the months, and has made continuing representations to the Minister. It wrote to him this week, following a council meeting at which all the political parties viewed his decision with dismay.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister which he may seriously go along with. It is a comparatively late hour and there are not many Members here, which means that some of the pressure has been relieved. I should have thought there was an argument, in equity, that those Members who have come here, and whose areas are still sufficiently keen to preserve their parish council status, should receive further

545
consideration from the Minister. If the Minister cannot give us an assurance tonight, perhaps he will put our legitimate grievances to the Boundary Commission for further examination in the light of the points that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has listed the criteria, Ossett meets the population criteria, the size criteria, the tradition criteria, and so on. It is important to remember that Ossett is separated by green belt from Dewsbury, which I represent, and Wakefield, the two neighbouring towns.
That is one reason for the Minister having had a big problem in determining its future. Even though Ossett has close links with Horbury, the links are of a social rather than of an immediately physical kind. I mention that because in the Local Government Boundary Commission Report a special point is made about the continuous built-up area being a disqualifying criterion within the metropolitan districts. It is my understanding that Ossett meets all the criteria on the Minister's list apart, possibly, from that criterion.
I have looked at the matter carefully. I have the map of the town and I know that Ossett is separated from Wakefield and, of course, from Horbury by the green belt. All that is left is about 300 yards of open country. I should have thought that that in itself was powerful enough ammunition for the Minister to refer the matter back.
There is another important consideration on which the Local Government Boundary Commission did not do its homework properly. The Minister must remember that when he initially announced the ward boundaries in the new local government set-up he deliberately put the west ward of Ossett into Horbury. However, he subsequently had second thoughts. Horbury wanted to be alone and away from Ossett. The Minister put the west ward of Ossett back where it belonged. Thereby the Minister has underlined and given recognition to the separate identity of the area.
Having examined everything carefully and being satisfied that the case is a strong one, I must ask the Minister whether the Local Government Boundary Commission has been to Ossett and Horbury
546
and whether it has looked at the situation again. Although it is regrettable that Horbury abuts on to Wakefield and therefore does not qualify according to the Minister's rules, Ossett, which I happen to represent, meets those rules. I ask the Minister to think again and to give Ossett that for which it is asking. Perhaps he will consider the areas to which other hon. Members will be referring and give them that for which they are asking.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. David Madel: Although my amendment was not selected for debate, what I have to say about Dunstable is relevant to the general debate. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), the Local Government Boundary Commission is sitting permanently. What we say here tonight we hope will be considered and referred to it by the Minister.
The reasons which I put forward for Dunstable having successor parish status are simple. First, I can give historical reasons. Dunstable has been a continuously occupied settlement since Roman times. It was granted a Royal Charter conferring status as an independent market town in the twelfth century, which status was reaffirmed by another charter in the 13th century. The town became a chartered municipal borough in 1864, and despite the coming of large-scale industry, which is now vital to British exports, Dunstable remains a small self-contained community. The people of Dunstable have for centuries enjoyed a direct voice in the town's affairs at administrative level. That is a powerful historical reason which should enable it to be given successor parish status.
Many of the present parishes in England, which will continue to have parish councils, are planning to expand to population levels far higher than the figure in the guide lines. Similarly, many of the present parishes, as well as boroughs and urban districts which have now qualified for successor parish status, are expanding. They will have populations well in excess of 20,000 in a comparatively short time. As my right hon. Friend knows, the comparison which I make in my own area is with the parish of Houghton Regis and the urban district of Leighton-Linslade,

547
the populations of both of which are at present behind Dunstable but which may shoot up above. Dunstable itself now has a population of 32,000 and has now built itself up to its boundaries. It cannot expand any more, and the prediction is that it has a virtually static population.
What I have just said can be linked to what the Minister said during the Report stage of the Local Government Bill on 17th April 1972:
"I do not want to put any figures in the guidelines to the Boundary Commission. I merely wish to describe the sort of town we have in mind. I referred to figures of 10,000 or 20,000, but figures will not go into the guidelines. It is simply the general character of the towns which we want the commission to consider."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 101.]
That is another powerful reason—the general character of the town—which I had hoped the Boundary Commission would consider, and give Dunstable successor parish status in its Fifth Report.
I come now to two important planning reasons which back up my case for Dunstable to be granted successor parish status. A parish council may request a district planning authority to send it details of all applications for planning permission which fall within the parish council's area, including details of the proposed development and the land to which the application relates.
Second, the Local Government Act 1972 stipulates that in any development order made by the Minister—that is, an order made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which either itself grants planning permission or states how permission is to be granted—such order must provide machinery for the protection of parish councils' views. This protection takes the form of allowing parish councils to make representations to the local planning authority, which representations must be taken into account; and furthermore the district planning authority must inform the parish councils of all decisions made under development orders by either themselves or the county planning authority.
In view of the correspondence which I have had with the Minister, he is now familiar with the problems of the South Bedfordshire area. The fact that
548
Leighton-Linslade has successor parish status adds weight to the need for Dunstable to have successor parish status. We are dealing with bigger district councils and bigger local authorities under the local government reorganisation. In my view, that makes it even more important that one should have parish councils which can make known the views of their area to the district council, especially in relation to the two planning matters which I have mentioned.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter and put it to the Local Government Boundary Commission, for there never was a time in South Bedfordshire when Dunstable more needed its voice to be heard as a separate unit, and this can be done only by giving it successor parish status.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Only a week ago, I followed the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) in the debate, and I agreed with some of the things he said then. I agree again now, and I hope that his request will be favourably received.
When the Local Government Bill was first produced and debated, it seemed to most of us representing county areas in metropolitan districts that there was a threat to the grass-roots activity of many of our villages and small towns. I was relieved when the Government decided to accept that parish councils in metropolitan areas could survive. One of the reasons for their decision was that they listened to the representations which they received from bodies such as the Yorkshire Parish Councils Association, which advised its constituent parishes on the efforts which they should make to bring about the necessary pressure. I am glad that that pressure was successful, but I am disappointed that the pressure exerted on behalf of so many urban districts has not been equally acceptable.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when winding up the debate on the Bill in the other place, was perfectly right when he said that Parliament would neglect the local councils at its peril. I believe that the Government have done just that in respect of many local authorities at this time.
In many cases, parish councils are not particularly vigorous bodies, but many

549
of them prove their value by the way in which social opportunity and protective welfare arrangements are provided for. I have 23 parish councils in my constituency, all of them free standing, all of them surviving, and the best of them are doing superb voluntary work. However, in addition to the 23 successor parishes which exist as of right, there are two urban districts in my constituency, and it is the future social health and vigour of those areas which worries me now. According to this and the previous order, neither of these two urban districts will have successor parish status. I have supported the application of both these district councils because I believe they fit the Minister's criteria completely.
Neither contains anything like the specified maximum of one-fifth of the metropolitan district population and both have populations of between 10,000 and 20,000. Both are clearly identifiable communities and are largely free standing. Their boundaries are overwhelmingly either green belt or industrial areas. When the first order, which disappointed so many of the districts in South Yorkshire, appeared, a number of my hon. Friends and I tabled a Prayer but the old Session ended without that Prayer being debated. I recall that on 24th October when the last Prayer should have been debated several hon. Members were in their places to express their views but the Liberals were not among those present. However, a few days later the Liberal Party tabled another motion of their own.
As the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) suggested, this is not necessarily a matter for party posturing. But it is a matter which deserves most careful consideration and particularly since the Minister's replies to letters seem to be remarkably flimsy and reprehensibly inaccurate. T was informed that there were relatively few free-standing towns in metropolitan districts, although I have 27 parishes within one metropolitan district in my constituency. Most of my parishes are free-standing, separate communities, entitled to their successor status, and so are the two urban districts which are disappointed. In one case part of an urban district forms an electoral ward with two parishes, and the two parishes have successor council status. But the ward of the urban district does not, and that is an absurd illogicality.
550
Before entering the House I served on a South Yorkshire urban district council for 10 years. It will not acquire successor status at least for a considerable time. While there I became well aware of the value and social worth of organisations such as that. They may be imperfect but they fulfil a real rôle and serve an essential purpose in local society. Rawmarsh in my constituency is very much an industrial community dominated by steel and coal. It is sometimes said to be dirty, since much industrial pollution—often originating outside the district—still has to be overcome.
However the community is one of generous heart and good nature. It is very much involved in welfare activity. Local public houses and clubs are proud of their considerable charitable achievements. The Clarence Inn raises substantial sums for the handicapped. The Crown Inn and the Tavern do the same for the hospitals, and so on. The urban district council applauds and supports these activities and is heavily involved in them. The council has a network of outside bodies on which it is represented. These include the Aid in Sickness Funds, The Goodwins Charity, the old people's centre, the Thomas Wilson foundation and the Aged Persons' Welfare Committee.
Every year hundreds of old-age pensioners go to the seaside. This year the number was 1,300. They were led by the chairman of the council, Councillor Ted Durnan. The trip is a result of the work of the organisations encouraged by and based on the work of the urban council. That may seem parochial, but it illustrates the vast social work which the local authorities can contribute and which has very little to do with their statutory functions, which they are perhaps not best designed to fulfil.
But it is not only statutory functions which those who are interested in local government are concerned about. This sort of social activity is facing a very serious threat. Some may say that the neighbourliness of the small town is evidence of meddlesome interference, parochial gossip and so on. But I remind the House that in small towns like those I represent people do not usually the in the loneliness of the city, they are not discovered having lain dead in their flats for a fortnight. Any step which transfers

551
the city's problems to the small towns of the industrial areas of the North would be very unwise.
One's argument is strengthened by the additions to the arrangements which the second order provides. It seems ridiculous that only two or three councils in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire will have successor status and now a larger number in West Yorkshire, although geographically and socially the areas seem similar. It is ridiculous that Rawmarsh, with a population of 19,000, should be refused, when places such as Holmfirth, Ilkley and Kirkburton, with similar or greater populations, have been approved.
There is a particularly glaring example in my other urban district, Maltby, where my remarks about social activity in Raw-marsh apply equally well. It is very close to the urban district of Tickhill, but Tickhill is only half the size of the recommended minimum that the Minister suggested. Like Maltby, Tickhill is entirely free standing, but it is not so suitable as Maltby, since it may not be so closely-knit a community and Maltby has not undergone the same social and population changes as Tickhill in the last two or three years.
Maltby remains a coalfield town. It has an excellent, sensible urban district council, which is so well regarded that the elected leader of the metropolitan district council has been selected from Maltby, which consists of only 6 per cent. of the metropolitan district population. But Maltby is different from Tickhill, in that it is a strong Labour community, while Tickhill now has its first Labour councillor for a very long time. There is some suspicion in South Yorkshire that there has been a certain amount of party political manipulation in the allocation of successor council status. This is regrettable, because this is not an ideal subject for party political posturing, but it is serious.
I hope that some arrangement will be made which will satisfy the urban districts of South Yorkshire, which have been so badly disappointed. I have even heard a sermon preached in one of our churches in which the vicar made very sincere reference to the inadequacies of the present proposals. I am concerned
552
because I believe that we are in danger of losing something valuable.
I should like to illustrate this by further evidence from Rawmarsh. Every year in Rawmarsh there is a civic Sunday, attended not only by councillors and officials but by representatives of varied local organisations. Afterwards, everyone marches to the council chamber, which is usually packed. There, whoever wishes to speak rises and generally offers good wishes to the council and then gives a report on the activities of his organisation during the previous year. It is sad that that event may not be held in future, sad because—perhaps I am biased—it will be disadvantageous to the many different bodies represented at that important local occasion.
I often question the wholesomeness of people engaged in the fashionable interpretation of community politics. I am concerned, as are the people in my constituency who are worried about this development, about serious community politics. We are not talking about people who are here today and gone tomorrow if the headlines and publicity have not been large enough, who appear only during an election campaign and for very little time afterwards. We are concerned about people who have been serving the community for many years and who I hope will be serving it in vigour and wisdom for a great deal longer. That capacity for the community to help itself will be eroded if the Minister does not take another look at this situation. I therefore hope that the order will not be his final word.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. David Knox: So far, hon. Members have tended to complain about omissions from the list of successor parish councils. I would like to express reservations about one inclusion. I refer to Kidsgrove in my constituency, in the county of Staffordshire. In many respects, I welcome its inclusion on the list. Like the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), I place a great deal of importance on community spirit. I think it is important that people should have loyalties to local communities, and clearly successor parish councils will play a part in this respect, in a way, I suggest, that the new district councils will not be able to do because they are much too large.

553
I believe that community spirit is very important. I believe that loyalty to institutions is important and that the smaller the institution the easier it is for people to express loyalty to it. In this respect, therefore, I welcome the successor parish council status which has been granted to Kidsgrove. On the other hand, there are two reasons why I am not so happy about it.
I have mentioned the importance of smallness in this context—smallness of institutions—which enables people to express their loyalty more readily and easily. Kidsgrove is already a group of communities. There are within the area at present covered by the Kidsgrove Urban District Council a number of areas which could easily have had parish councils themselves. For example, New-chapel, Talke and what is locally considered to be Kidsgrove itself, could have had that status. They are smaller and so it would have been better if each had had a parish council. Apart from anything else, they would not have pushed up, as Kidsgrove UDC area does, against the upper population limit prescribed by the Act.
My second reason for reservations is that the representations made to me have been five to one against the granting of successor parish council status to Kidsgrove. I forwarded these representations to the Boundary Commission and then to the Secretary of State after the Commission reported. I suspect that these fairly strong expressions of local opinion were not so much as a matter of principle but more as a reflection of fact that in the last 12 to 18 months there has been a political change in Kidsgrove.
The urban district council which was elected in 1970, 1971 and 1972 consisted of 23 members—22 Labour and one independent. There have been four resignations since, so the present state of play is 18 Labour and one independent. In the past 18 months the council in Kidsgrove has become extremely unpopular.
It has behaved in an arrogant manner. It has been insensitive to public opinion. It has been dictatorial. It has pushed through plans against the wishes of the electors in Kidsgrove. The result of this was that in the district council elections last June, the area covered by the present UDC, which now falls in the new
554
Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council, elected 10 independent councillors and two Labour. So, against the political tide at the time, there was a strong swing against those elected in 1970, 1971 and 1972.
I think, therefore, that it is rather unfortunate that the successor parish council which has been created will consist of those people who were elected in 1970, 1971 and 1972, who have become extremely unpopular in the locality in the meantime.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to think again about whether those who were elected in those years should act as successor parish councillors until the elections in 1976. I ask him to think again about whether elections should not take place for the successor parish council rather sooner than that.
It is important that these successor parish councils should work. The one in Kidsgrove, in particular, may experience great difficulty in working satisfactorily, because the people sitting on it are extremely unpopular locally.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The successor councils are an important and welcome modification to the Government's reorganisation plans. I do not think they will have cause to regret that they modified their approach. Successor councils will make the new system more workable, particularly in the large districts. The "hole in the blanket situation" as it is often described—whereby one place has no council of its own in a large district other parts of which have parish councils—is unfortunate. It is a pity that it will remain in some areas.
I fear that the Government are reluctant converts to successor councils. This is illustrated by the fears people have over the question of property. I hope that when the Minister comes, later, to discuss the property problem, he will be able to say that successor councils will be in a strong position rather than a weak position in relation to the districts when it comes to handing over the property of the present urban districts. The cautiousness of the guidelines further illustrates how uncertain the Government seem to have been. The shutting of the "Pearly Gates" this evening again illustrates

555
that they may be less than keen to see successor councils in many places. None of us wants to imperil the Barn-staples and Denby Dales—the lucky ones who have got through—but most hon. Members have particular places in mind. Throughout the country there are places which will be disappointed tonight if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us some assurances. My hon. Friends have received letters from places like Barrow Ford in Lancashire and Tonbridge in Kent.
I am surprised at the attitude of the Boundary Commission. In its Report No. 5 it says:
"we have reached the limit to what we feel can properly be regarded as the exceptional treatment of the criteria in the existing guidelines."
It is following closely the Minister's guidelines. If we look at what the same Commission says in Report No. 6, it has a different attitude to guidelines. It says:
"We recall that the guidelines issued to us for our operation on formulating proposals for the non-metropolitan districts …. included …an indication that: 'once the new authorities have taken over, the Commission will be invited to carry out a thorough review of proposals for detailed adjustments of boundaries, including those of the counties and metropolitan districts'…Given the constraints outlined in this Report, we see no prospects of entering into a programme of main reviews until the electoral operation has been completed."
Hon. Members can see that those guidelines have been completely overturned. The Boundary Commission has turned to the Minister and said, "Sorry, the guidelines you gave us on this subject are not acceptable." In the light of that it could take a much wider and more generous view of some of the guidelines it had been working on in the course of this review.
There are passages in Report No. 6 which bring tears to the eyes. There is a suggestion that the Commissioners are unable to carry on their present work and the programme of reviews which they originally intended to carry out. If there is a need for more staff I hope that the Minister will note that. If there is a need for more Commissioners I am sure hon. Members can suggest the names of people who will take on this work with which the Commission seems unable to cope, especially when those places which
556
were on the borderline for this review of successor councils were not visited by a Commissioner and in many cases do not seem to have been visited by any official from the Commission. It may be that the Commissioners had to take short cuts and do everything from their attic in Church House. They say:
"We must organise the operation to secure that …the decisions in each case are so taken as to ensure that they carry our personal authority, as we are collectively responsible for them".
If the Commissoners are to do things in such detail they cannot complain that they have too much work. If the guidelines had been wider and the Government had been ready to accept successor councils on a wider scale, the task would have been easier and the number of detailed cases the Commissioners had to examine much smaller. Here is a case where the more radical view would have been less burdensome to carry out.
The extension of the parish council system to urban areas was long overdue. The opportunities to provide local amenities, to represent local feelings and to serve as a watchdog in areas such as planning is just as important in the small towns as in the villages. It is just as important in the "village" areas of our cities where neighbourhood councils could help protect the environment and strengthen community spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope) is to introduce a Bill seeking to extend the parish council concept to London—the London Parish Councils Bill.
There is also a number of councils which did not exercise the option to apply to become successor councils. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, if the gates are shut tonight, within the next few years some councils which did not choose to apply to become successor councils under the present guidelines will realise what they are missing. They will realise that opportunities are open to other places within their areas that are not open to them and will themselves want to become successor councils. A change in the pattern in the area reflecting different views from those now represented on the council will lead to areas wanting to become successor councils. I feel strongly that the Government should take a much wider view.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: I speak on behalf of the Borough of Andover in Hampshire and at the request of the borough. The borough was granted its Charter in 1175 by Henry II and received an amended Charter under King John which was confirmed under the Great Charter of Elizabeth I. Andover was created a municipal corporation in 1935. It has thus had no less than 800 years of unbroken civic local government—a tradition of the highest order.
When local government reform was announced it was welcomed in the area because it was expected that Andover would become the centre of the new district council taking in the borough of Andover, the rural district of Andover and part of the rural district of Kingsclere and Whitchurch. There was great disappointment when it was found that Andover was not big enough to take on that rôle and the area became instead part of the Test Valley authority.
Under the Act parish councils are continued and are given increased powers. The Government are right to recognise the need for parishes. Parishes have a duty to act as focal points for protecting local interests, maintaining local traditions and providing leadership in a distinctive local community. But the Government do not allow the establishment of a town as a successor parish council if that town dominates the new district council, leading to duplication of representation and the danger of two councils covering the same area pulling in opposite directions. The Government have defined "dominance" as 20 per cent. of the district council or 20,000 people.
Andover does not fit the criteria because its population is 27,000, but it is not in a position of dominance. Only 13 out of 43 councillors on the new district council represent Andover. It is not a council within a council, and there is no duplication. It is part of a district council that has its headquarters in Romsey, 8 miles away. Romsey has its successor parish council, and every other parish in l he whole of the new Test Valley authority except Andover will have its successor parish.
Far from being dominant, Andover is not even the centre of the new district
558
council. It is stuck away 8 miles to the north of Romsey. It has distinctive local problems—parking, open space and playing field problems—and it needs a focal point to protect local interests. It has an immense local tradition and it needs local leadership. Andover's need for successor parish council status is exacerbated by its being a London overspill town. It is an attractive, country, market town which has had grafted on to it a series of estates which, by taking people from London, are helping to alleviate London's desperate housing plight. This means that there is an even greater need for successor parish council status. Unlike anywhere else in the district council, of which it is part, Andover has the unique problems that flow from taking a vast number of new people into its area, with all the peculiarities and problems of town centre redevelopment and things of that nature to consider. I feel very strongly that this is a case where the Boundary Commission should have been more flexible and should have been given successor parish council status.
I realise that if I vote against the order tonight it will mean denying to some other parishes the right to secure their successor parish council status. Therefore, although I cannot support my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby, I shall abstain from voting. I feel that an area with 800 years of unbroken civic tradition, an area with growing local problems of overspill, should not be denied successor parish council status.
10.56 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Harper: This motion gives us all the opportunity to say something about the local authorities in our constituencies and to ask why they have not been granted successor parish council status.
I have three authorities in my constituency, one of which has been granted successor parish council status. I refer to the Urban District Council of Feather-stone. The two authorities that have not been granted such status are the Borough of Castleford and the Borough of Pontefract.
There are five guidelines set down by the Boundary Commission which have to be complied with before successor parish council status is designated. It is not

559
clear whether one or more of those criteria must be satisfied to obtain successor parish council status.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) said he had an authority with a population of 19,000 which has been refused successor parish council status. Yet authorities such as Ilkley, with 22,000 population, Harpenden with over 24,000 population and Winsford with 25,000 population have been granted that status. There are inconsistencies of treatment involved in these orders which the Minister should clear up in his reply.
It is not clear how the guidelines operate because, for example, Feather-stone has been granted successor parish council status but Pontefract and Castle-ford have not yet they comply with four of the five guidelines. The only guideline with which they do not comply is that they should have a population of between 10,000 and 20,000. But even that guideline has been proved to be incorrect since two of my local authorities which have not received this status have populations of 24,000 and 25,000.
One of the other guidelines lays down that an authority should have less than one-fifth of the total population of a new district. The population of the new West Yorkshire district, at a conservative estimate is about 300,000. That gives a figure of 60,000 each. Castleford and Pontefract have populations of less than that figure: Protefract has a population of half that figure and Castleford has no more than 39,000.
One of the other guidelines relates to historic and common interests. Well, no town has more history than Pontefract. It has a famous castle and it is the place where the first ballot ever took place—indeed, they still have the original ballot box. There is plenty of history in that area. Castleford was the site of a Roman encampment, and we do not need to go back much further than that. Therefore, so far, we comply with two of the criteria laid down. There is certainly a separate identity. Do local people want it? Certainly, because they have sent petitions to the Minister.
Two of the three authorities have complied with four of the five guidelines. The other complies with all five and I am pleased to say that it has been granted successor parish status. I agree with the
560
hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) who has vast experience in local authority work. I remember hearing of him when he was Lord Mayor of Leeds and I agree with him that we have to keep some interest in local government.
When we reorganised local government we effectively took the "local" out of it so that it was not local any more. We now have to allow for neighbourhood or community councils or successor parish councils—which we are debating tonight—in order to recreate the local interest which we shall otherwise be removing next April.
I hope that the Minister will reply to all these points. I may seem to have jumped the gun because I know that Pontefract and Castleford have not taken kindly to being left out of successor parish status when one of the three authorities in my constituency has got it.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: There are six urban districts in my constituency and each wants this status. For years they have looked after their own affairs and they have suddenly realised that all the power they had before has been taken from them. One of them, Conisborough, has one of the oldest castles in Yorkshire and there they have always dominated local affairs.
Mexborough is a large authority with 17,000 to 18,000 people and they also have always looked after their own affairs, as have Wath-upon-Dearne people and those at Wombwell, which is an old-established community. Darfield is a very small community, separated from any other, a marvellous community which wants autonomy.
Now Conisborough and Mexborough have gone into Doncaster; Swinton and Wath-upon-Dearne into Rotherham, and Wombwell and Darfield into Barnsley. They are wondering what will happen to their communities. Each is a self-contained area. Who is to guarantee the interests of the people of these areas on the fringes of the district councils who will look after them? Each has for generations looked after its own community and its own people. Unfortunately, they are doubtful about what is to happen to them. Who can guarantee that Barnsley, Rotherham or Doncaster will look after them? They

561
are people living in their own little communities which they have built up. Can we be sure that the three district councils will look after them?
It is said in Documents 3 and 5 that the Government intend to see what happens, but these people are deeply worried, and to say that is to make no criticism of the authorities. It is all very well for the Government to say that they will wait and see what happens. For my own part, I can assure the Minister that unless the three district councils look after them, I shall fight very hard to see that they are looked after. Each on its own——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not realise that it has been agreed that the two Front Bench spokesmen should share the remaining 25 minutes. I was taken a little by surprise when the hon. Gentleman rose. Naturally I called him. I cannot ask him to resume his seat, of course, but I think that the House would like to hear from the two Front Benches as soon as possible.
Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall watch the position very keenly to make sure that the citizens of my area are looked after and catered for properly.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Oakes: One feeling has united both sides of the House and all three parties in this debate. It is a feeling of extreme injustice to many authorities, some of them very old ones and others not quite so old, but all of them with a keen community spirit, which have made application for successor parish council status.
As a result of the traumatic experience of the Local Government Act 1972, the whole of local government is still in a state of confusion. In addition, we have had the taking away of water and the removal of a number of health service responsibilities from local government. If that is not enough, we have proposals before us at present concerned with rating for local government which create complete confusion.
During the passage of the Local Government Bill, the one theme that we had from the Government which all hon. Members appreciated was the assurance
562
that the smallest part of local government—the parish council—was left alone to carry on as before doing a very useful job. Even better, in respect of existing local authorities, the Government created, admittedly at a later stage, the concept of the successor parish council, subject to certain criteria, where there was considered to be a local demand and a local need. The Opposition applauded that action by the Government, as did most hon. Members. What have we had since then? First, the order is entitled "The Local Government (Successor Parishes) (No. 2) Order 1973 ". That alone is remarkable. We had a No. 1 order containing a comprehensive list of successor parish councils which one would have thought that the Government, having got together with the Local Government Boundary Commission in looking at that list, would have decided would be the list. But no, we now have a No. 2 order, in which more successor parishes are added.
We shall not divide the House because to divide the House and win would be to deprive some areas of successor parish status. That is the last thing that we would want to do. But we echo the sentiments of hon. Members who have spoken very feelingly and cogently about some of the local authorities in their areas.
When we consider the successor parishes and think of these authorities, we must think of them as existing parish councils. Therefore, the argument about dominance which we hear from the Government is a somewhat——
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have never spoken about dominance. One of my hon. Friends used the word, but I do not find it anywhere in the guidelines.
Mr. Oakes: I have heard the word used—not meaning domination from the Government but dominance of one authority because of its spread over another.
Mr. Page: No.
Mr. Oakes: One hon. Gentleman has used that argument. I want to dispel that argument because we are dealing not with an authority which will carry on but with an authority which will carry

563
on in a very different way as a parish. It is not merely a question of the statutory duties of that parish; it is the collective voice of the parish.
Hon. Members will probably agree that at present communication between individuals, communities, local authorities or the Government is very difficult to achieve. That is why we get ad hoc groups lying in the road without consulting anyone in an attempt to stop traffic, because they do not know to whom to turn. One of the advantages of successor parishes or existing parish councils is that they are elected, organised voices of communities. They can represent a community's views to the district council, the county council and to the House if necessary, as an elected, organised voice.
The people who have applied for successor parish status and have not got it feel that they have been unjustly treated. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) mentioned Pontefract, Featherstone and Castleford. Featherstone has got successor parish status; Castleford has not. Coming from another Rugby League town, Widnes, I understand how Castleford must feel. Why on earth has Castleford not been given successor parish status? The two towns have very separate identities and communities, as they prove when playing each other in a derby match.
There is much confusion as to when elections will be held. A Bill which is at present passing through the House relates to two parishes in Surrey and Sussex. The Government have rightly said that as they are creating a new organisation there they will have new elections because of that. Will there be new elections in these successor parishes, which are very different from the bodies which they previously were when elected as urban districts or as boroughs, or something like that. They are totally different, with different powers in every sphere.
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the very vexed question of property? Hon. Members will have had a considerable volume of correspondence, particularly from an Essex area, on this matter and there is some confusion. There is not much confusion among those authorities which are going into the new
564
districts, but there is confusion among those authorities which will remain as successor parishes, about which of their treasures will remain and which will have to be passed on to the district councils.
One of my hon. Friends reminded us that in another place it was said that the Government would neglect local councils at their peril, and this debate proves that that is so. Local pride counts for something. Local successor parish councils can be a voice within the new districts, and can help to express to the district councils and the county councils the collective view of the districts. I would echo what many of my hon. Friends have said.
We have had a No. 1 Order and now we have a No. 2 Order. On behalf of those hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who have stayed up late tonight to tell us forcibly about the representations they have had from their constituencies, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is not too late even now to have a No. 3 Order, so that some of those successor parishes who wish for parish council status can continue to exist as separate entities and can serve their communities in a useful way.
11.17 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The hon. Gentleman knows that I have very great respect for his arguments, but I feel tonight that the argument which he has used is so far from the facts that it has not contributed much to this debate. Anyone would think from the tone of his argument that the Government were destroying parish councils. In the course of reorganisation, the Government have retained some 10,000 parishes which have some 7,000 parish councils; and a total of 407 applications were made for successor parish status, of which 296 have been admitted to that status. I utterly deny the statement by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that the Government seem less than keen on successor parish councils. The whole object of the submission of the applications to the Boundary Commission was to get an independent decision on these according to guidelines made well-known, and we have accepted the recommendations of the Boundary Commission because we think

565
that it applied those guidelines fairly and reasonably.
May I first answer the point about elections and by-elections? As regards new elections for the successor parishes, it would be wrong to break the continuity. The whole point of setting up successor parishes was to give continuity to the existing small boroughs and small urban districts. To plunge them into new elections at an early date would be wrong. As regards by-elections—which point was raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark)—the 1933 Act provides that there must be a by-election held within 30 days of the declaration of a vacancy. As he pointed out, in the present order we have put the date of 17th December in place of the declaration of a vacancy so that a by-election will have to be held within 30 days of that. It would have been wrong for us to hold up these by-elections any longer; they ought to be held at the earliest possible date. I suppose there would have been objections if we had held them after the new register comes into force. We might have been told that we had not given enough time for the study of the register. I felt that it was right to have them as soon as we could.
I come now to the embarrassing matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley when he quoted a letter which I had written to him in which, unfortunately, the names of two sets of parishes were transposed. It is true that I told him that Colne Valley had successor parish status. However, in the very next sentence I said that the other four in his area, Denby Dale, Holm-firth, Saddleworth and Melton, had not got successor parish status. If he wishes to hold me to the one, I do not know whether he would hold me to the other four and say that they have not got parish status.
Fortunately, my office noticed the error and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the following day, I think it was, spoke to him and apologised for that sad error. It is always the letter which one signs in a hurry which has the dynamite in it. I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I must add that he scores out of it in having four given successor
566
parish status as against the one which was refused.
May I now give the background to the successor parish concept. Before local government reorganisation, all rural districts were divided, as the House knows, into parishes. The populations of these parishes ranged between 200 and 20,000. Reorganisation left those parishes in rural districts untouched. It was evident that there were being merged into larger districts, small boroughs and small urban districts of exactly the same character as most of the rural parishes. There was really no logic in having parishes in areas which happened historically to have been rural districts and denying the same sort of parish status to areas within the new districts which just happened to have been in urban districts before reorganisation. But in the midst of local government reorganisation, we could not set up a massive new boundary scheme for creating new parishes, or new areas as parishes, if I may so put it. It was just not possible. We could deal only with existing units with boundaries which were already there. Therefore, we laid down guidelines for the Boundary Commission on the basis of asking it to find the areas which already had local government boundaries and which corresponded as nearly as possible to the existing parishes in character. It seemed to us right that these small towns should continue to have a local council, and that the aim should be to achieve continuity at the most local level of representative government.
One of the guidelines which I have always regarded as most important is 2(b), to the effect that the proportion of the district population comprised in the town under consideration should not be such that the town, if it were given separate local government status, would have a divisive voice in local government. If the area will have a sufficient voice within the new district, it should not be given a separate local government status, at least under this present exercise.
That is the reason why, in a number of cases, areas of considerable importance—sometimes of the greatest historical importance, as hon. Members have said—will have a strong voice in the new district. I take the example of Andover,

567
in the district represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). Andover has 32 per cent. representation in the new district. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) referred to Dunstable. In fact, Dunstable has a 38 per cent. influence in the new district.
Mr. Hardy: Of the four urban districts in the Rotherham Metropolitan District, three have 6 per cent. and one has 8 per cent. of the metropolitan district population. The largest parish in my constituency with a successor council is nearly the same size as the three smaller urban districts.
Mr. Page: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. I apologise to hon. Members who have spoken because I shall not be able to answer all their points before 11.30. I will do so by writing. The reason for the refusal of parish status to many of the areas within the metropolitan districts and metropolitan counties is the phrase used at the end of paragraph 1 of the guidelines, which says:
The Government's further view, as explained in Parliament, is that small towns which are at present boroughs or urban districts should retain elected councils at parish level where such towns are broadly comparable in size and character with other small towns or villages which at present have rural parish councils. But it is the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which are essentially built-up areas."
That is why parish status has been refused in some instances.
But that is not the end of the story. The exercise which we were able to put in the hands of the Local Government Boundary Commission was to define the areas which were like the existing parishes in rural districts and where there were already clear boundaries. Within the metropolitan districts and within built-up areas, only a very few qualified. I hope that in due course we shall go on to consider how best to provide grass root representation within the built-up
568
areas, within metropolitan districts and metropolitan counties.
It may be, for example, in Colne Valley—that is perhaps one of the best examples I can take to demonstrate the difficulty within the metropolitan areas of deciding upon which area should have parish status—as the hon. Member for Colne Valley said, that there are a number of scattered settlements which have been formed together into Colne Valley Urban District, as it is now, which runs along the valley. I could list six, seven or eight centres which might well be parishes in themselves. There is a continued built-up area along the valley. It may be that, in time, when we come to consider the proper parish representation within the metropolitan districts, that it will be right to give an area like Colne Valley more than one parish.
I hope that it will not be long before we shall be able to formulate a policy for providing a form of parish status within metropolitan districts and within large towns in the non-metropolitan counties which have been refused parish status. It may be right to divide them into wards of some sort. That is the policy to which we should look in future. In that respect, I endorse everything which has been said about the value of something in the form of a parish in our local government structure. We need not a pressure group, not a group merely to agitate, but a group which has statutory functions, real work to do and money to spend to look after an area and to represent an area within the district council. In the meantime, if I might give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) the district does have power to contribute money towards voluntary societies which may be keeping such matters alive. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and negatived.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUCCESSOR PARISHES)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

COURT CLERKS (STATUS AND SALARIES)
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which is of great importance to the efficient working of magistrates' courts throughout the country and to the Uxbridge Petty Sessional Division in particular. I refer to the acute shortage of court clerks, which is hampering the work of courts today to such an extent that in my constituency the number of courts has had to be reduced from four to three per day. In addition, Uxbridge court has had to sit on Saturdays to dispose of the work coming before it, which is particularly heavy, as it has to deal with all those cases arising from prosecutions connected with offences at London Airport.
The House will be aware that magistrates deal with the bulk of criminal cases, that only about two out of every 1,000 criminal prosecutions get beyond the magistrates' courts, and that in discharging their judicial duties lay magistrates are entitled to legal advice of a high order. A considerable proportion of the advice comes from court clerks, who are neither the clerks nor the deputy clerks, and are neither solicitors nor barristers. In practice, they emerge from the staff and their ability is based almost exclusively on experience. The few courses of instruction that exist for them are the result of the efforts of the National Association of Justices Clerks Assistants.
I have discovered that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not yet prescribed the qualifications for a court clerk as he is enabled to do under Section 5(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968. Although I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may now be genuinely anxious to press forward with arrangements for increasing the number of polytechnic courses available, I fear that he may have decided that it will be unwise to move further until he receives from the magistrates' courts committees an estimate, of the number of court clerks required. I am told that the whole question is now awaiting the appointment of the shadow magistrates' courts committees, who will be able to
570
supply the answer to this question. As I understand the position, my right hon. Friend would then make firm rules prescribing the qualifications of court clerks, but the rules would not immediately become effective. It would be provided that they were to come into effect in 1980.
In concluding this debate, therefore, my hon. Friend may care to give the House some indication when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects to prescribe these qualifications and to clarify the situation. A specified qualification for a court clerk would, of course, have to be a high one to be acceptable. The position of existing non-qualified court clerks would also have to be protected if magistrates' courts were to continue to function efficiently until newly qualified clerks began to enter the service. There would also be a need for a nationally organised recruitment and training scheme, a career structure, and salaries which compared favourably with competition from outside.
None of these desirable features exists at present. Even if such arrangements were miraculously to come into being forthwith it would be unlikely that a competent court clerk would emerge in less than three years. It is therefore quite clear that until proper recruitment and training schemes are available in the longer term the courts will be compelled to cope with an increasing amount of work with an inadequate complement of court clerks.
That situation is quite unacceptable. Urgent remedial action in the short term is therefore essential. The central problem is that the supply of court clerks has dried up because of the poor salary structure. In addition, the magisterial service does not offer career prospects which are attractive to the type of young man or woman it is hoped to recruit. There should be an attraction to persons wanting articles of clerkship to seek them with a solicitor justices' clerk. Many of them do so, but then find that their prospects compare unfavourably with opportunities in private practice. In 1971 there were 54 professionally qualified assistants in the magisterial service. Twenty-seven—exactly 50 per cent.—have left that service, and there can be little doubt that the service is therefore deteriorating and,

571
with it, the standard of British justice of which we are so proud.
The only solution in the short term is for the courts to be able to offer realistic salaries and prospects to attract the right people. In addition, it is vital that the status of those involved in the administration of the criminal law is vastly improved. Status starts with public respect for the justices' clerk and it percolates down the chain of command to the junior court clerk. When justices' clerks' salaries are today little above those of assistant solicitors in private practice and junior clerks' salaries are below the national average wage it is hardly surprising that the younger man and woman with ability and a desire to enter public service are disinclined to do so. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether he can take action now to ensure that this once proud and efficient service is restored to its rightful place in society, so that the administration of the criminal law may once again be as efficient as the public expect it to be.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—North-wood (Mr. Crowder) wishes to speak, and I shall finish now, to give him a chance to do so. However, I must explain that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), who is unfortunately unable to be here tonight, has asked me to say that he wishes to be associated with my remarks.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. F. P. Crowder: I had a word with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) on this subject. It is not a political matter. The hon. Member is a member of the Bar and I think I can say on his behalf, having discussed the matter with him, that in general terms he would agree with the few brief remarks I have to put.
I believe that this is both a general and a local problem. It is a local one in so far as it affects the difficulties which have to be resolved by the Middlesex Courts Committee. I assume that salaries are dealt with through a well-established negotiating machinery and that the special difficulties in London will be pursued through those channels.
572
Perhaps, apart from that, something may be done in London by the magistrates' courts committees collectively—perhaps, with Home Office help, to encourage the recruitment of school leavers. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be able to comment on that. For 14 years I have had the honour and privilege to sit as a deputy chairman or chairman of quarter sessions, or as a recorder, but always with a magistrate. Magistrates do their work for nothing. One can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and conscientious work they devote to justice in this country. But when they sit with me in the Crown courts or quarter sessions—always a different one every time—they say, "We are very fortunate in our clerk. He is so helpful and conscientious in every way that we could not do our job without his assistance."
If one were to ask a foreigner what he admired about this country, probably his first answer would be the monarchy and his second the majesty of the law and the administration of justice. It is something of which we are all justly proud and to which the whole world looks up. It is also something for which the public pays the very least. Enormous sums are paid over in fines every day, not only in magistrates' courts but in Crown courts. I do not know the figures, but the country seems to be getting something of which it is justly proud for practically nothing.
Under Section 1 of the 1967 Act, under which matters are committed from magistrates' courts to Crown courts without depositions being taken or evidence heard, a great responsibility naturally falls upon the clerks in giving advice. The evidence is read over and the magistrates do not have the opportunity of deciding not to commit. They rely on the clerk. If he bears such responsibility, he should be properly paid.
I believe that, as things go on, a higher qualification should be required of clerks, but they should be paid accordingly. Far from saving money and time, Section 1 of the 1967 Act has wasted more time and money than perhaps any other measure that has come before the House. Some cases that now come before Crown courts would never have arrived there but for that section. Therefore, a great responsibility rests upon the clerk who

573
has to give advice. If the British people wish to maintain our system of justice and their pride in it, they should pay for it.
11.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) have raised the important issue of the status and salary of court clerks. I appreciate what they Have said about the importance of this position in magistrates' courts, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge slightly exaggerated. I think that the figure for cases tried in magistrates' courts as opposed to higher courts is not 998 out of 1,000 but 98 out of 100.
I am aware of the overall problem, and particularly the problem of vacancies among positions for court clerks in the magistrates' court at Uxbridge, which has heavy lists and which has had to change and curtail sittings because of this shortage.
The term "court clerk" is a description of a function and not of a grade of individual. It defines those who do the important job of regularly advising magistrates on the law, taking a note of the proceedings, recording the decision of the court and generally supervising its running. I do not think any of us doubts that the efficient running of a magistrates' court depends to a large degree on the efficiency of its court clerks.
When we talk of court clerks we refer to the justices' clerk, the deputy justices' clerk and the justices' clerks' assistants who sit and act in the court as clerk of the court. Each petty sessional division has its own justices' clerk, although an individual clerk may be responsible for more than one petty sessional division.
Earlier this year, outside the inner London area there were 275 full-time justices' clerks and 152 part-time justices' clerks, all of whom qualified under the provisions of Section 20 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, the qualifications being that they should be either barristers or solicitors, or should have had not less than 10 years' experience sitting as clerks prior to 1st January 1960.
574
In practice, the vast majority of justices' clerks are solicitors. Almost all the part-time justices' clerks are solicitors in private practice. They are appointed by the magistrates' court committee, which also fixes their salary. They have a joint negotiating committee for the fixing of salaries, which are related to those of senior officers of local authorities and to the population of the area the court serves. As I understand it, there are enough qualified justices' clerks available.
In addition to the justices' clerk himself these are the people referred to by my hon. Friend. In each of the larger petty sessional divisions, with the additional volume and complexity of the work they have to do, most of them are responsible for several courts at the same time. It is therefore necessary to have not only the justices' clerks' assistants but clerks of the individual courts affected, either as deputy justices' clerks or taken from the ranks of the justices' clerks themselves. The degree of responsibility varies greatly from place to place in which they may sit.
The size of the establishment of staff in any petty sessional division is decided by the magistrates' court committee, which is also responsible for the grading of the justices' clerk's assistants. Sitting in the magistrates' courts today, as well as the justices' clerks there are about 254 deputy justices' clerks and about 350 justices' clerks' assistants who act as court clerks. They must be looked upon in relation to the total staff of the magistrates' courts, which is about 4,000. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I make it clear that no single petty sessional division has complained direct to the Home Office that it has been unable to staff its courts.
Having said that, I nevertheless realise that Uxbridge has been in difficulty and has written to the Lord Chancellor about it. I realise that in several other areas there is difficulty in recruiting adequate suitable staff, and that concern has been expressed, as my hon. Friend has said, at the fact that many legally qualified assistants are leaving to go into private practice. The justices' clerk's assistant, sitting as a court clerk, needs no professional legal qualification, as such. Some are solicitors, some are barristers,

575
some are articled to the justices' clerk, and some are reading for the Bar.
I fully realise the force of what my hon. Friend has said about the necessary and appropriate desire to have a higher proportion of qualified people sitting as court clerks. Originally a justices' clerks' assistant acquired his knowledge by practical experience in day-to-day work. Some years ago the National Association of Justices' Clerks' Assistants, together with the Justices' Clerks Society, set up a diploma course in magisterial law. In 1968 the Home Office set up a training committee comprising representatives of all the various bodies concerned to formulate advice on training.
It was agreed from the outset that the primary need was to provide specialised training for the assistant called upon to act as a court clerk. Accordingly, a training course was set up for them, first—in 1968—at Manchester Polytechnic and subsequently, and in addition, at Bristol. These two courses provide, in all, about 50 places a year. The course lasts for a total of three years. Each year the students spend six weeks in residential training, which they have to supplement by home study. The syllabus for these courses is designed to combine instruction in the law—with special emphasis on criminal law—with practical training. As the polytechnics are of university standard a high standard is achieved, and discussions are going on about the possibility of successful completion of the examination at the end of the course providing exemption from some subjects of the common entrance examination to both branches of the legal profession, now being considered by the Cross Committee.
I fully accept what my hon. Friend said about the importance of training and of courses of this nature in providing adequate status for those who wish to become clerks in our magistrates' courts. I assure my hon. Friend that it is the ultimate intention to use the power of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 to prescribe that assistants acting as court clerks shall have completed an approved course on the lines of those now being operated by the polytechnics, unless they are in other ways qualified, by being already barristers or solicitors or people with long experience. It would obviously not be practical to do this and to
576
prescribe the powers until a sufficient number of court clerks have been trained to meet the various needs.
I cannot say when that time will come, but I understand that the National Association of Justices' Clerks' Assistants raised this matter at a recent meeting. It was agreed with the Home Office that further consideration of these proposals should be deferred until the new year, when there will be further time to consider them. It is hoped that the prescription of qualifications will be accomplished over the next few years.
My hon. Friend also mentioned salaries. I appreciate that, as in all other walks of life, the salary scale is important. Salary scales for all justices' clerks' assistants are negotiated by the Joint Negotiating Committee for Justices' Clerks' Assistants, which consists of representatives of the magistrates' courts committees, the empolyers—the local authorities, which are the paying bodies—and the National Association of Justices' Clerks' Assistants. The Home Office is not represented on the committee and consequently does not and cannot take any initiative in questions relating to salaries.
The last assistants' salary round was negotiated in October last year, when they received an increase, operative from 1st July 1973, within the prevailing limits of the Government's counter-inflationary policy of £1 plus 4 per cent. I understand that the salary scales agreed at that negotiation committee for justices' clerks' assistants relate to various clerical and executive grades in local authority service.
I realise that, as with other public services, there are special difficulties in recruitment, especially in the London area. One way of assisting recruitment may be to award an increase in the London weighting allowance, which is allowed within the terms of stage 3. At present it is based on the allowance paid in the local authority field. The National and Local Government Officers' Association is negotiating for an increase in the London allowance. If an increase is granted, a corresponding increase could be negotiated for justices' clerks' assistants.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-North-wood (Mr. Crowder) that recruitment is of importance. Justices' clerks' assistants

577
are appointed by the magistrates' courts committee concerned. They are under the direct control of the individual justices' clerk to whom they are assigned, and recruiting is conducted locally. It has not hitherto been thought necessary to undertake special recruitment measures. Nevertheless, activities on the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend—approach to school leavers and assistance from the Home Office—could be extended if there is a demand by magistrates' courts committees for assistance, as has been suggested to the Middlesex Magistrates' Courts Committee during consultations
578
following concern about the position in Uxbridge.
I hope that we can look at this question from a wider viewpoint, if that is demanded. I have no doubt of the importance of the justices' clerks' assistant. Competent clerks of courts are a necessary part of the English legal system. We must not forget the training that they obtain through experience. Nevertheless, like my hon. Friend, I should like to see a higher status for these court clerks brought about by the provision of training on a more central basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday 12th December 1973
[MRS. JOYCE BUTLER in the Chair]
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Boothroyd, Miss Betty (West Bromwich)
Braine, Sir Bernard (Essex, South-East)
Cormack, Mr. Patrick (Cannock)
Cox, Mr. Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Douglas, Mr. Dick (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
Ewing, Mr. Harry (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy (Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
Finsberg, Mr. Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Fox, Mr. Marcus (Shipley)
Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)
Harvie Anderson, Miss (Renfrewshire, East)
Hiley, Mr. Joseph (Pudsey)
Howe, Sir Geoffrey (Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs)
Jones, Mr. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Luce, Mr. Richard (Arundel and Shore-ham)
Milne, Mr. Edward (Blyth)
Money, Mr. Ernie (Ipswich)
Pounder, Mr. Rafton (Belfast, South)
Stott, Mr. Roger (Westhoughton)
Williams, Mr. Alan (Swansea, West)
Mr. R. B. Sands, Committee Clerk.

UNIT PRICING BILL
10.30 a.m.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Unit Pricing Bill ought to be read a second time.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) in his place as he has displayed more than a passing interest in the subject of unit pricing during the last two Sessions. He has introduced a Bill with the same objective in each of those Sessions. It has received increasingly benevolent
580
approval from both sides of the House but has not been able to complete its passage through the obstacle course which is what we design or allow to persist as the vehicle for the making of laws in this country. However, he now has the pleasure of seeing this Bill introduced by the Government to give us power to introduce important unit pricing measures.
Unit pricing is the way in which prepackaged goods on sale in shops are marked with their price per unit of quantity—Xp a pound or Yp a pint, or whatever it may be. Many goods, fresh foods,

581
particularly, are commonly unit priced at the moment. For example, apples are often unit priced. Various fresh meats are often unit priced. The question is whether we should by this Bill give to the Secretary of State the power to require unit pricing as a matter of routine in relation to any particular commodity; that is the power which we now seek.
It is important for the Committee to understand that there are real limitations on the value of unit pricing as a technique. Some people are so attracted by the idea when they first comprehend it that they regard it as the answer to every conceivable consumer problem, to be used in every possible circumstance. It is not as easy as that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock, when discussing the matter previously, acknowledged that in many cases prescribed quantities are a much better consumer safeguard. There is a safeguard in the familiarity whereby one knows that one buys butter or sugar in half-pound, one-pound or two-pound units, and the familiarity with which one can choose a certain quantity, knowing that the pack in the familiar size is of the familiar weight and one can merely look at the price at which it is being sold to compare different prices in relation to the same prescribed quantity. Nobody who has considered this matter rejects the proposition that, where possible, prescribed quantities are preferable.
One other limitation to the unit pricing system, as the publishers of Which? frequently point out, is that, although something may be the cheapest by reference to the unit price, it is not necessarily the best. Unit pricing cannot reveal the variations in quality that may underlie variations in price per unit.
While my hon. Friend has been introducing his various attempts at legislation on this matter, officials of my Department and of the Department of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) have been carrying out studies of the extent to which unit pricing is used and is useful in other countries. The report which resulted from that analysis was published in the Consumer Information Bulletin in August this year. I arranged for it to be published so that there should be even better informed discussion of the whole question by consumers
582
and suppliers throughout the country.
The lessons which emerge from that report and from the study of the scene in other countries can be shortly summarised. In Western Germany and Switzerland unit pricing is required for goods which are not made up in prescribed rounded quantities. So it is there as an option where the better alternative is perhaps not being employed. In Sweden, unit pricing is strongly recommended by the Government. As I recollect it, the option of standard quantities is not as readily available for Sweden because it imports many commodities from many different countries in different pack sizes. Unit pricing is therefore potentially capable of playing a larger part there.
In the United States there is no national legislation about this, but in a number of states and cities there is legislation requiring unit pricing in relation to some or all commodities, generally exempting the smaller retailers from the obligations so imposed. There have been examples of voluntarily adopted unit pricing by the larger supermarket chains operating across state boundaries. In various parts of the world, therefore, the objective is recognised as worth while and experimentation and obligation have gone some way.
As I said a moment ago, in the past in our country it has been generally used in relation to the sale of fresh foods. I mentioned fruit and meat; it is also still frequently used in relation to such foods as cheese.
There has been a generally favourable response to the measures introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock. It is for that reason that we seek these powers today. That does not imply that we have reached a clear and final view of the commodities in relation to which the powers should be exercised. Clearly we shall want to consider with manufacturers, retailers and consumer organisations in what respects they should first be exercised. We shall want to listen to the views of hon. Members today. Some of the possible candidates are clearly on the fresh food front guarded by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. She, I am sure, will say

583
more about the details of that if she catches your eye, Mrs. Butler, towards the end of this morning's proceedings.
On the non-food front, candidates do not offer themselves so readily. Detergents have been suggested as a possible candidate, but there are complications about detergents which hon. Members will no doubt appreciate. Although a reference to units of weight can be specified, one finds that the detergent capacity or washing quality of the detergent varies significantly: weight is not a true measure of its strength or effectiveness. We have now secured agreement from the manufacturers to the use of standard volumetric packs so that they will be the same size in four different ranges. That is the first step and may be almost more helpful than unit pricing, which would be misleading if it were made solely by reference to weight.
There are other candidates in the range of toilet preparations—toothpaste, for example. We have now secured some agreement on the standard use of the same measurements of capacity by reference to cubic centimetres. It may be that from that we shall be able to contemplate some kind of unit pricing there.
However, in many of these territories problems still arise because of the variations in strengths or quality of what may be the same in volume, size or weight. One of the alternative ways of dealing with variations in size, weight, strength and packing for some toilet preparations could be by standardisation of containers. We have achieved it voluntarily in relation to detergents. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has introduced a Bill which is due to be debated on Second Reading in the House later next year entitled the Weights and Measures (Containers) Bill, and the powers given in that Bill might, in some cases, be more appropriate. Powers to specify container sizes may be of equal value for some toilet preparations. Those are some of the matters we shall have to consider when we exercise the powers which we now seek.
I have mentioned the difference in treatment accorded in the United States to the large retailers and the smaller retailers. Everyone who has considered this subject recognises that it is easier to secure unit price labelling, if that
584
is the way it is to be done, if one is selling own-brand products labelled, stamped and priced by a large organisation because the mechanics can be more expeditiously done. The further one moves away from that, in a world where one does not want to reintroduce resale price maintenance, the cost of unit pricing must rise.
We would not want to limit the field within which the benefits of unit pricing can be made available and deprive any given group of consumers of those benefits. At the same time, we would not want to add significantly to the cost of goods sold as a result of introducing unit pricing too widely. Again, we have no preconceived ideas, although there are various examples to be looked at in other countries, and we would wish to have full consultation.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Am I to understand that it is in the Minister's mind to exempt retailers below a certain level of turnover? If so, does he have a level of turnover in mind?
Sir G. Howe: I should not wish to be precise now. That is one of the methods that has been adopted in some parts of the United States. It was, I think, referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in an earlier debate as one possible way through. But one would want to have the widest possible consultation to arrive at the best answer. It is one of the reasons why we would also wish to consult about the way in which unit pricing should be required.
In Clause 1(3) there is power to be conferred upon the Secretary of State to prescribe
"the manner in which …"
as well as—
"the units of measurements by reference to which, any unit price required to be marked …"
is to be marked. That would give options as between individual labelling of each item, which might be appropriate in some cases, or adjacent labelling on the shelf where the items are displayed, which is another basis, or the display of comparative lists at the entrance or adjacent to the place where the brands of goods are on sale. There are those three different methods which can be used,

585
and different methods may be appropriate in different circumstances, just as different approaches may be appropriate for different kinds of retail outlets. We have power to prescribe the method or methods there. That, too, will be subject to consultation, and, of course, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Bill is an example of pure textual amendment, which means that it is difficult for people to understand it without having before them the original Weights and Measures Act being amended. If one reads them alongside one another, one sees that the substance is all contained in Clause 1. Subsection (1) is the principal enabling power, subsection (2) defines "unit price"; subsection (3) I have already dealt with; subsection (4) gives power for regulations to be made in imperial or metric units or both; subsections (5) and (6) contain the important provision that any food regulations made should be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is upon that basis that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading today, we shall be engaging in detailed consultations with the organisations I have mentioned to decide what further steps should be brought forward in this field.
I may have misled the Committee about the procedure on the orders. I should make it clear that the main order-making power is subject to affirmative resolution. The regulation-making power is subject to negative resolution.
I commend the Bill to the Committee.
10.45 a.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Opposition support the Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friends and myself pressed for such legislation during the Committee stage of the Fair Trading Bill. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) will confirm that he, too, had our support at that stage. I regretted for his own sake that his Bill did not complete the course last year because he had done a great deal of work on it, as had those who were also interested. It is one of the misfortunes of this place that a somewhat tardy Member on his own side, to make the anguish even greater, happened to shout "Object !" to the hon. Member's
586
Bill when he meant to oppose the previous one. All the work that had gone into it was therefore lost. I am glad to see the measure come forward again so soon, but I regret that the hon. Member has not got the credit for it in his own name.
The main issues are clearly understood and were debated in adequate detail last Session. The need is well established. I think that the Government have come—and do not mean this in any snide sense—rather reluctantly to recognise the need, because during the debates on the Fair Trading Bill there were even greater reservations than have been expressed today or in the Committee stage on a similar Bill last Session of the limitations which are involved.
We recognise that this is not a panacea but at best an aid to the housewife, but we feel, as we felt formerly, that it is an aid which the housewife could well do with, particularly in these days of mass marketing. It really needs a computerised housewife to decide what is the best buy when she is confronted with 7½ oz. and 8½ oz. packets with different prices and brands. It is even more difficult now because of the confusion in the use of metric and imperial measures. In many instances this has made comparison virtually impossible. All too often this has come about through sheer thoughtlessness on the part of suppliers, but there is no denying that on occasion there has been a deliberate attempt to confuse the housewife and to prevent her from making value-for-money judgments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman himself made the point that standard quantities are in general a better aid to the housewife. I do not challenge that as a basic proposition. I simply point out to him that in the notorious example of jars of jam, where it is possible by clever design of the jars to produce a visual misrepresentation, many housewives pick up a 12 oz. jar of jam thinking they are getting a cheap one pound jar and it is only perhaps when she arrives home that she discovers the quantity is not what she expected. So even the standard quantity does not make up completely for the existence, or the non-existence, of unit pricing. It is helpful to have both pieces of information available to the housewife in certain instances.

587
Far too many firms, particularly in the toiletry line, have been deliberately confusing not only metric and imperial but even using different types of measurement within any one system so that a housewife may look at what is said to be a cheaper range produced by one manufacturer and find imperial weight being used for that range and when she looks at the dearer range of a product she finds that metric volume is being used. So even within a system it is extremely difficult for her to make proper comparisons.
Metrication is giving rise to many complaints and abuses. This is where the Government have been remiss in not doing more to advise the consumer on the use of the metric system. In the debate on metrication, I pointed out that before the beginning of this year the Metrication Board asked the Government for two budgets. One was to persuade industry to use metrication, and the other was to educate the consumer in metric quantities. The Government approved the first budget to persuade industry to go metric, and refused the second budget to advise the consumer how to contend with metric conversion.
The need for consumer awareness is quite clear. It was stated by the Under-Secretary in the proceedings of the Weights and Measures Bill Standing Committee on 4th July 1973, when he said:
"The change from a largely imperial to a wholly metric environment is bound to be difficult for the consumer and the retailer, but particularly for the consumer."
This we would all accept to be the case. He went on to say, when talking about how to make a comparison between the two systems, that this should be done
"in a gradual manner, which is the only way that this can be brought about sensibly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th July 1973; c. 14.]
Information on the impact of metrication should take place over a time, and it should take place concurrently with the introduction of metrication. Metrication is giving rise to many abuses which are leading us to say that there should be unit pricing, and the Government deliberately refuse to budget for consumer education in the use of metric quantities. There is a disparity between what the Government said overtly in Committee on the former Bill and what they do
588
in a more concealed or furtive manner in relation to consumer education on metrication. It led to allegations from both sides that the Government were introducing metrication by stealth. But the person losing as a result of metrication by stealth is, of course, the housewife, who is not receiving the advice and information which the Metrication Board said the Government should give to the housewife. It is the Government who have vetoed the advice of the Metrication Board, which will no doubt be made the Aunt Sally if public disquiet becomes too open.
Having established that we think that unit pricing should also, concurrently with metrication, have a publicity programme as recommended by the Metrication Board, I wonder when the Government intend to implement the Bill. Implementation, like the publicity campaign which the Government vetoed, will focus housewives attention on the changeover to metrication. That is what the Government do not really want. I suspect that we may find considerable stalling in the implementation of this legislation, even when it has reached the Statute Book.
On 4th July the Under-Secretary said:
"In theory, it would be possible to introduce a unit pricing order once the enabling powers were available. But, because of the consultation I have mentioned—the statutory consultation procedure as well as the voluntary—it is unlikely that effect would be given to such an order, until the consultations are fully completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th July 1973; c. 13–14.]
One could understand that as a defensive position in July, but it is now five months later. The Government indicated that they would produce such a Bill. In the last Session they made it clear that they supported what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were trying to do. Why, then, do we hear yet again today that there have to be consultations? Why have the consultations not taken place in the five months which have elapsed between debate on the earlier Bill in Committee and today's Second Reading? Surely we should now be much nearer to implementation than we apparently should have been if the Bill had gone through in the last Session.
I should welcome an assurance from the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. I have not served in Committee

589
with her before and I do not mean any disrespect to her by raising these points in a critical fashion; I know that she will deal with them as best she can. But I hope that she will give the Committee some guidance on the time table envisaged by the Government for the implementation of this legislation.
I equally wonder, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), at the extent of implementation. I am an avid reader, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of his and the Parliamentary Secretary's words. I find it interesting to read their further words when they try to reconcile their points of view. The Under-Secretary said on 4th July on the very point which my hon. Friend raised:
"It should be noted that businesses with small turnovers have been exempted from unit pricing regulations in the United States of America. This raises many problems, and I do not want at this stage to commit the Government on this matter, but it is conceivable that we could follow a fairly good example by exempting stores whose turnover fell below the VAT levels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th July 1973; c. 11.]
The Government were therefore thinking about the matter in July, and they are clearly thinking about it deeply, because they are still thinking about it in December. I hope that the thoughts will come to fruition before one o'clock today and that the hon. Lady, on whom I am imposing terrible burdens, will reveal the outcome of the profound contemplation which has been taking place during all these months in the Ministry. I am sure that minds have been concentrated on this matter and that clarification is about to be achieved.
In any case, I should question the basic proposition put forward here. If I understand him correctly, my hon. Friend would probably take the view that he is not at all convinced that there should be exemption. There is a good case to be made that there should be no exemption. I shall not bring up again the elderly widow whom Members of Parliament usually produce at a suitable emotive occasion during a debate, but it is a real point for elderly or infirm people who cannot go far and have to do most of their shopping at the small corner shop. It is no consolation to them to be told that, if they go to a supermarket, not
590
only might they be able to get things more cheaply but all this information would be available; if they are the trapped customers of a shop whose turnover is below a certain level, advice and information on good buys is to be denied to them.
I am sure that the right non. and learned Gentleman wants to be fair in the way that this will eventually be implemented and I would ask him to take this point on board. This may well have been considered during this lengthy five months, and the Government may be able to explain what the balance of decision has been here.
Of course, it can legitimately be pointed out in defence that, with the present and presumed rate of inflation, the £5,000 turnover, which is in any case weekly, brings more and more firms within the compass of VAT and that, if the VAT formula were applied, it would also bring them within the compass of the Bill. There is, further, the decision arrived at in the Common Market this year which could mean that, for the small firms anyhow, the threshold level could actually be brought below the level at which it now operates for VAT.
However, we should take a lot of convincing that there should be exemptions from the application of the Bill, and it is up to the Minister to justify any exemptions that he may have in mind. I said that I thought the Government's objections had weakened somewhat by last July, as compared with the earlier stage of the fair trading legislation. Even so, having listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reservations today, I am still not convinced that the Government's hearts are in this legislation. We want more than presentational achievement of a statute; we want practical implementation.
The Under-Secretary said last July:
"It is not envisaged that the power could be used extensively, except perhaps as regards metrication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 4th July 1973; c. 12.]
After all, metrication is well through its allotted five-year span and if the Bill is to help in relation to metrication its implementation is needed very rapidly indeed. Consequently, if it is not envisaged that it is going to be used much other than in relation to metrication, and if metrication is already so well advanced that it is near complete achievement at

591
the consumer level, then, of course, one is left wondering whether we are here passing a piece of legislation that will not see much implementation or much action from the Government. I think it is a case of the Government equipping themselves with a consumer armament after the consumer has already lost the battle with the retailer.
I recognise that this is somewhat outside the hon. Lady's field, although it relates to foodstuffs, but the Government ment will have seen in The Times Business News on Monday that:
"A number of producers have introduced rationing."
The article from which I quote goes on to talk about the impact of the shortage of containers, bottles, cans and other forms of container. Unit pricing is inevitably linked with the pre-packaged presentation of goods in the supermarket. This is where we see it used most extensively.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I introduced, for the second time, a Container and Packaging Control Bill yesterday. I hope I shall have his support on that also.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am essentially fairminded and co-operative with any measure that will assist the consumer, as indeed are all my hon. Friends. I am glad to say that our enthusiasm for many of these measures has been apparent long before the subsequent enthusiasm which has now emerged from Ministers. However, many products in short supply have now become scarcer.
The Times Business News goes on to say:
"Most food and toiletry manufacturers, including H. J. Heinz, Gillette and Cadbury Schweppes, together with many alcoholic drinks producers, have been affected by shortages of packaging and raw materials."
I have to take the word of the writer of the article about the alcoholic drinks but I am sure all hon. Members will confirm the points made about the food products.
How do the Government, faced with a unique crisis for this country—a conceivable shortage of food supplies in the shops because there are not sufficient containers and bottles in which to put the products—envisage unit pricing working
592
against this background, or do they envisage it working at all? Will there be any discussions between the Government and the supermarkets?
As the hon. Member for Cannock knows from discussions in the House last year on packaging, one of the reasons why returnable bottles, for example, have gone out of use and we now have the wasteful throw-away bottle system at the very time when there is a scarcity of bottles, is that the supermarkets refused to take returnable bottles, as it was an administrative inconvenience to them to have to deal with paying back deposits. It is a funny thing about the supermarkets that they are quite happy to take 2p off one's bill as one goes through the pay desk on receipt of a manufacturer's voucher, but they find it an intolerable burden to take that same 2p off when one happens to return a Coca-Cola bottle or something of that sort. Faced with something that could undermine the intentions of the Bill, and, far more importantly, cause an absolutely unnecessary scarcity of foodstuffs in our shops, the Government should have urgent consultations with the supermarkets to see whether their policy in relation to the use of returnable containers can be changed.
In Committee in July, the Under-Secretary indicated, and I would not dissent from that intention, that the enforcement of unit pricing legislation would become the responsibility of the weights and measures inspectors. As I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman will immediately acknowledge, considerably greater responsibilities were imposed upon the weights and measures inspectors last year as a result of the fair trading legislation. We are this year making them responsible for the enforcement of the consumer credit legislation when enacted. One would assume that when the network of consumer advice centres, to which both parties are committed, is set up throughout the country, that will again cause an additional workload for the weights and measures inspectorate. The enforcement of unit pricing, when the Bill becomes law, is another job to be carried out by the weights and measures inspectorate.
It would be interesting to know, if the information is available, what the

593
current shortfall is in the establishment of the weights and measures inspectorate. The last time I spoke to officials in South Wales they gave alarming figures of the number of vacancies which existed for weights and measures inspectors. In other words, the existing establishment, which was decided before all the extra legislation put an additional workload on the inspectorate, has not been fulfilled. There appears to be a shortfall there. Is it as high as 20 per cent. or is it lower than that? Perhaps we could have some indication of its magnitude, if not precise figures.
How does the Minister envisage the inspectorate in its present form carrying out the extra work? Are the Government considering increasing the establishment? Since there is, in any case, a shortfall in the number of weights and measures inspectors, one would suspect that there is probably a remuneration inadequacy anyhow, that the rates of pay in our cities are inadequate to attract suitably qualified people into the weights and measures inspectorate. How exactly do the Government intend to overcome those problems?
Finally, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited the United States to look at consumer protection practices there. I am sure that he obtained a great deal of valuable information. How does he intend to overcome the various difficulties which the Americans have found in the application of unit pricing? One might say that these are administrative problems, but they are nevertheless important to the housewife.
There is a complaint, for example, that, where computer printouts are used for labelling they are almost indecipherable for the housewife anyhow. Very often they are hard to read not only because of the way in which they are printed out but also because of the very small print. One would assume that, as with his parallel legislation on consumer credit, the Minister intends, when he makes his regulations, to require certain standards of legibility, to be able to specify size of print and so on, so that the effectiveness of unit pricing is not lost simply through bad application at shop level.
The Minister made the legitimate point that, in some cases, it may be reasonable for the unit price to be marked on the
594
product, whereas in other cases it may be on a rack containing just the one product. One of the complaints in America has been that many firms put the unit price information at the very bottom of a series of shelves so that it takes a very industrious and determined housewife with the gift of long vision to discover it. Does he envisage his regulations dealing with this type of abuse—perhaps it is just neglect by certain shopkeepers—as has happened in America?
Those are the points which we particularly want covered. I imagine that the Committee stage of the Bill need not be a particularly lengthy occasion, as most of the ground has been covered previously. As I have said, we support the Bill. Our worry is that we are not as yet convinced that the Government's intentions on enforcement are as clear as their intentions just to produce the legislation.
11.14 a.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Hon. Members will not be surprised that I welcome the Bill. I should like to begin by thanking both my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams') for their very kind references to my previous efforts. We certainly seem to have come a long way since I gave the Speaker a tube of toothpaste in March 1972 when I first introduced this as a Ten-Minute Bill. In fact, this is the third time that we have been in a Committee Room discussing it. We got it through Committee in 1972, but at that stage the Government were not prepared to give it a fair wind, and of course Parliamentary time was short. We got it through Committee last Session and the Government were indeed prepared to give it their blessing, for which we were all grateful, and then, because of the fatuous procedure to which the hon. Gentleman so accurately referred, my hon. Friends dozed off, objected at the wrong moment, and the Bill did not become law. It could have been law by now.
However, there is always some advantage to compensate for a disadvantage. I think that this is a better Bill than the one which I produced, and it was amended with the advice of my hon. Friends as recently as July. It is slightly more comprehensive; it gives proper scope for dealing with fresh foodstuffs and so on,

595
and I think it represents a gain. All I am bothered about is that it should become law and that it should be implemented as quickly as possible. In that context I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right when he said that this legislation was not a panacea for all ills. Of course it is not, and I have never pretended anything else. It is a small, but, I suggest, significant, weapon in the fight against inflation and gives the discriminating shopper some more information to which she is absolutely entitled. Just as the shopper is entitled to know the ingredients of foodstuffs when she is buying a bottle of, say, sauce, so she is entitled to know what weight she is getting for her money.
Some shoppers are not discriminating, are not discerning, they do not care what is in the sauce or what the weight is, but most of them these days do and they are entitled to that information. As a result of the Bill, they will be able to have it.
I do not want to make a long speech because so many of these things have been said before by others and myself, but there are difficulties for a housewife in a hurry in a supermarket. To go into a supermarket—this is essentially a Bill that affects the supermarket—is almost like going in for shoppers' roulette. The poor housewife, often harrassed by children, pushing a trolley and trying to decide what is the best value and confronted with jars some of which are 12 ounces and some of which are one pound, and with an amazing complexity when she reaches the so-called toiletry section, is at a great disadvantage. It is essential that she should be given further help.
With regard to the small shopkeeper and the valid points made by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) I would say only that I should like them brought within the scheme but we shall have to think carefully about where the responsibility should rest. Manufacturers should not be entirely absolved of responsibility; it should not be put entirely upon retailers because—I am sure the hon. Gentleman would endorse this—there are many small retailers up and down the country who are performing a real social service and making very little money. Often the corner
596
shop or the village shop is operating within a very tight budget and the proprietor gets little out of it, but it does provide a real social service.
It has never been any part of my endeavours or intentions to make life more difficult for those shops, or for the customers whom they serve. In industrial areas like mine there are many corner shops which are highly valued and in many of my villages there are small shops which are also highly valued. They cannot carry the range of goods which the supermarket carries. They cannot even begin or pretend to compete, but they offer a personal service without which this country would be much the poorer. So I hope detailed thought can be given to this.
It is within the fields of fresh food, detergents and toiletries that the maximum advantage of the Bill will be gained. Tremendous advantage, too, will be gained during this period of metrication. I was delighted to receive this morning, as I believe did all hon. Members on the Committee, the communication from the Consumers Association in which it welcomes the Bill,
"particularly so on the eve of metrication. Consumers will be confronted with unfamiliar weights and measures and it will be even more difficult to relate 148 g and 173 g to a price and assess whether the product is 'cheaper' or 'expensive.' Fixed benchmarks of quantity or price per quantity will be even more desirable."
Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to pay a well-deserved tribute to the work of the Consumers Association in this field and in many others over a long period. It is as much as anything else the pressure from this and other kindred bodies that has created a real awareness of consumer needs within Parliament. We should none of us omit to mention that. Succeeding administrations have become more and more consumer conscious because of the work of bodies like the CA.
But, just as it would be churlish not to mention that or to pay tribute to the work done by both the previous Government, with the Trade Descriptions Act, and the work of many private Members, so it would be extremely churlish of me not to pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend, who has done a great deal in a short space of time to help the consumer. The Fair Trading Act, which is now on the

597
Statute Book and the consumer credit legislation which is going through now are indicative of the very real importance attached to consumerism. Indeed, the appointment of my right hon. and learned Friend was, in itself, perhaps the greatest tribute that a Government could have paid to the importance of this subject.
So I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what he has done, and thank him for bringing this forward. At the same time, I want to refer again to what the hon. Member for Swansea, West, said—that passing the legislation is not enough. There has been a great deal of time for consultation and I know that there have been many consultations, over two years now, since I first introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on this subject. I hope that such consultations as must inevitably and properly follow from the passage of this Bill will not be unduly protracted. I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible, and that this session of Parliament will see the first effects in the shops of this Unit Pricing Bill. Then the shopper, particularly the housewife, will have this extra small, but potentially very effective, weapon in her armoury against inflation. It will assist her to make more discerning, discriminating choices and it will give her cause to be thankful that it is on the Statute Book.
With those words, I give the Bill every possible welcome and thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have assisted me in my endeavours over the last two years.
11.22 a.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I agree tentatively with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who has done so much in his own individualistic way to bring this type of Bill to the Committee. However, there are one or two things that I wish to say particularly to the Minister. It is really an enabling Bill. We really will not know what the Government have in mind until we see the regulations and it is important to note that the Minister was extremely reluctant to give us much indication of what he had in mind in terms of regulations.
Unit pricing it really a second-best alternative to the packaging of goods in
598
specific rounded quantities as a means of helping the consumer. This is not the best thing that the consumer can have. Therefore, with all the welcome we give the Bill, we ought to be exerting pressure. This is why it surprises me that the Government bring forward the Bill but bring forward very little to do with pressure and legislation about quantity. Perhaps the Government might think, even during the passage of the Bill, of looking at the quantity side and we might have suitable amendments to bring some specified commodities within the orbit of specified quantity.
The experience we have had in this country because of pressure is that the large retailers have already adopted, in their own way, unit pricing. This is an indication of the monopsonistic power they have vis-à-vis the manufacturers. There are advantages in this, but there are also disadvantages. The disadvantages relate to the structure of retailing. It we are going to have large chains putting pressure on the manufacturers so that their own brands of commodities are unit priced in one way or another, then there is a possibility of getting resale price maintenance by the back door.
I should like to know what the Government have in mind in relation to the Bill and the Fair Trading Act, particularly with regard to a review of resale price maintenance. How do they reconcile the definition of unit pricing, which is a recommended price, with the abandonment of resale price maintenance, except through the gateways of meritorious consequences that flow from the particular sections of the Fair Trading Act? This is something which the Government have to answer.
Sir G. Howe: It is more on my patch than on that of my hon. Friend. Does the hon. Member not accept that there is a difference when unit prices are fixed by a large retail organisation in relation to its own brand products? It is not thereby introducing resale price maintenance; it is merely determining the prices at which those goods will be sold at its outlets. It is perfectly possible to have that going on by one retailer on one line of goods; it is quite distinct from the fixing of retail prices across the board by a manufacturer who is making for seven different retailers. Philosophically they are reconcilable.
Mr. Douglas: I accept the philosophical reconciliation. What troubles me is the economic impact, which has to be looked at searchingly. The advantage of unit pricing, as far as we can see, is in relation to the own-brand commodity. If one has that, there is a possibility that those organisations which are not in voluntary chains, co-operative societies or multiples, will find it difficult to sustain competitive advantages when they have to sell goods that are not their own brand. I am indicating—I hope clearly—that I am in favour of the Bill, but also that there are certain difficulties that the Government must attempt to reconcile.
Second, on whom will rest the liability for unit pricing? Will it be the manufacturer or the retailer? What sanctions do the Government propose to have? Do they propose to impose fines for failure to display goods in terms of the manner of unit pricing that the Government want to produce? Do they propose, for instance, to say that unit pricing will be on the shelves, on the package, or on window boards? Have they had any investigations into which of these methods of unit pricing is most advantageous for particular goods? We require a little more information on these matters than we have received from the Government so far.
The experience of other countries cannot be duplicated here. The European Community seems to be in the process of devising regulations to govern unit pricing. At present there is no suggestion that unit pricing should be mandatory within the Community, but proposals have been made for its study. How will the Bill fit into the framework of any regulations that are likely to emanate from the Community? We have to import large amounts of foodstuffs and other commodities. How does the Minister propose to communicate with the importers as to the method of unit pricing which should be adopted?
What astounds me about the whole procedure is that unit pricing keeps a set price. The problem arises with regard to special offers. What devices does the Minister have in mind so that unit prices can be altered speedily, quickly and effectively without infringing the law, so that the housewife and the consumer get the benefit of the possibilities of reduction in
600
prices? Is this not something that comes urgently to mind in these days of excessive and pressing inflation?
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman will realise that, although there are difficulties such as he suggests, the Bill will do away with many of the spurious special offers, and this will be of further help to the housewife.
Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I, perhaps in my naïvety, having sat through the Fair Trading Bill, thought that the Director General of Fair Trading would have powers to investigate spurious special offers or have them drawn to his attention. I am not saying that the Bill would not help in that connection.
However, is it the Minister's intention to ask the Director General of Fair Trading to comment on regulations that he might wish to bring before the House in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture?
What is the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this? The Bill refers to a Secretary of State. I assume that that is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Secretary of State for Scotland is, in effect, his own Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, is the Bill comprehensive enough to embrace these relationships?
Sir G. Howe: I can deal with that last familiar chestnut. Legislation normally refers to "the Secretary of State" without qualification and that means any holder of the office of Secretary of State. That includes the Secretary of State for Scotland and, indeed for Wales and any other stray Secretary of State who happens to be passing by. It is one of the curious oddities of our parliamentary draftsmanship system.
Mr. Douglas: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I am not a distinctive imbiber of the product myself, but I get very worried about whether whisky should be sold in standard containers or whether it should be unit-priced. I am worried about this type of commodity because, if a unit price is fixed without giving the consumer adequate information as to the quality, my constituents might suffer a great deal; there is more whisky in my constituency than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
11.34 a.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I apologise for my late arrival? I have been in another Committee, also dealing with consumer problems.
There are two points that I should like to raise on the Bill. If they have already been covered, I apologise. When we were last going through the Bill on 4th July 1973 two points worried me. One followed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in column 11 of the Standing Committee report of the Weights and Measures Bill. He was talking about the powers that exist under Section 21 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963, and about whether, for example, jams or pet foods sold at local Labour or Conservative Party bazaars could be exempted from the provisions of unit pricing. He appeared to feel that they could be exempted, and I am sure that would find support in many quarters, but I should like an assurance that further reflection has not shown that a difficulty would arise on this particular point.
He then went on to talk about the fact that, in the United States, small turnovers had been exempted. I should like to know whether the regulations which are contemplated would give a suitable power to exempt small shopkeepers in this country, perhaps using the VAT level or any other figure. If it is possible to exempt them, would he contemplate sending a circular to small shopkeepers pointing out that, although they are exempt by regulation from unit pricing, none the less it would be right if they could, on a voluntary basis, go as far as they can? Small shopkeepers frequently have small shoppers and they might require the assistance that the Bill could provide.
The second point on which I should like an assurance is perhaps more esoteric. It relates to Clause 1(4), which states:
"Regulations made by virtue of subsection (4)(h) of this section may require any unit price to be expressed by reference both to imperial and to metric units of measurement or by reference to one or other only of those kinds of units of measurement."
I was not completely satisfied on the last occasion as to whether, in layman's terms, this meant quite simply that the measurement of unit would be imperial and/or metric. On that occasison my hon. Friend said, at two o'clock in the morning,
602
that he wondered whether one needed to add at the end of that clause the words "or both". I am wondering whether the words "or both" are covered by the current wording before us.
There would, on this occasion, be slightly more time if one decided to put down an amendment. I was warned off an amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) on the last occasion. Alas, if I had put down the amendment and it had been carried it would have made no difference because the Bill never received the Royal Assent. However, I should like a firm assurance that the wording in the Bill as drafted gives a very clear option that the measurement can be in metric or imperial or both.
Sir G. Howe: I give my hon. Friend that assurance now before he sits down.
Mr. Finsberg: Thank you.
11.38 a.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: I join with all hon. Members who have spoken in welcoming the Bill. However, there is a danger, because we are all in general agreement, that we may fail to say the things which ought to be said if this measure is to have any real impact upon consumer protection generally in this country. From that point of view, it is interesting to note how the Bill has "just growed", almost like Topsy in "Uncle Tom's Cabin". The first Bill, in 1972, had 11 lines and that was considered a commendable Bill; I too commend the hon. Gentleman for his efforts. By July 1973 it had grown to 20 lines and was now, apparently, to the satisfaction of the Government. Now, in December, 1973, it has changed its name slightly and has become a massive Bill of 46 lines.
All hon. Members who have spoken have said that they welcome the Bill. The hon. Gentleman, in the previous Committee in July 1973, said that he felt that unit pricing would have a small role to play in consumer protection, but, nevertheless, a significant and helpful one. It is our job, I take it, to ensure that the Bill is significant and helpful. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be "a tool to help the housewife"; therefore, we must be sure that it does, in fact, help the housewife.

603
The hon. Gentleman said that it was essential that we should be able to provide the necessary information through unit pricing to the discriminating shopper. We must do all we can to make this available to all shoppers, because the discriminating shopper usually has sufficient ability to work out the mathematical calculations. However, many of those whom I would have hoped that unit pricing would benefit will be people perhaps not quite so discriminating as he and I might wish. We must try nevertheless to ensure that when it is introduced unit pricing will help all those people.
Mr. Cormack: It will of course be available to everybody, but, clearly, the more discriminating the person the more help it will be. That was the only point I was making.
Mr. Jones: I am not disagreeing. I just wanted to be sure that we were not saying that this basic help of unit pricing would be for a select group only. I am sure that we intend to make it cover as many as possible, although if people then chose to ignore the information there is nothing anyone can do about that.
In making sure that it does help, I should like to refer to a letter from a lady in Eastbourne who says that she has tried unsuccessfully to interest the Minister—she does not say which Minister, so no one need feel embarrassed—the Consumers Association and a number of others in
"an aspect of retail trading which is increasing.
This is the growing practice of fresh food shops, including one of the big supermarket chains, of failing to indicate the price per lb. of goods offered for sale, and sometimes of failing to price any of the goods so offered in some cases.
From the fatuous answers I have received "—
presumably from the Minister!—
"I have come to the conclusion that no one wants to know or to do anything in the matter, possibly because no resultant publicity will result! The insidious nature of the practice is psychological, namely to get the public into the shop knowing full well that few will have the courage to walk out even when they know they are being fleeced."—
I am not quite so sure about that—and she concludes by saying:
"The aged, the infirm and the disabled are particularly vulnerable."
In introducing unit pricing, we must try to ensure that, whatever means we
604
use, we so fix the way in which it is carried out that that group—the infirm, the disabled, and particularly the elderly—is given adequate protection.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that
"Power is also given to make regulations providing for the manner in which unit prices are to be marked."
I should have thought that by now we should have had a clear, or at any rate clearer, idea from the Minister as to how he sees this part of it, how the unit prices are in fact to be marked. It seems that we now have a choice of imperial units, metric units, or both. We must aim to ensure that the way in which the prices are indicated is clear and fairly uniform, and certainly it must be easily understandable to the majority of people.
That is a lot easier said than done, but I think we could certainly aim for some sort of uniformity. We have some experience already with the warning on cigarette packets, which has to be of a certain size. It seems to me that we should be looking at that side of it—the size of the notice as well as the kind of information is should contain. After all, one could easily put the unit price on a commodity or container but tuck it away in such a position that no one would even see it. That would not be the kind of help that we should seek to provide in the Bill.
Secondly, on, the question of metric units, I well recall the debates in the House on the decimalisation of money. I recall that I voted for it. But a good many people outside the House are not sure that we helped the housewives when we introduced decimalisation of money. Although it was being almost acclaimed in the House as a giant step forward, I suspect that a good many ordinary housewives wish they were back with the old old pounds, shillings and pence.
We should take warning from that experience. I was therefore glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) raised the question of the introduction of metrication. I should like to know how far we are committed to metrication. How far do the Government intend to take us along that road and at what speed? If we are to go along that road at all, it is absolutely essential, if unit pricing is to mean anything, if it is to be carried out in

605
metric units, that there should be a massive scheme to educate the people of this country as to what metric units are.
I taught—or rather tried to teach—mathematics for some 13 years before I became a Member and I am sure that the majority of the boys and girls whom I taught knew as much about metric units at the end as they did at the beginning. This may be a reflection on my teaching ability, I admit, but it indicates that we would be moving into a completely new field for ordinary people. Therefore, if metrication is to be tied up with unit pricing, we must ensure that people are given sufficient time, information, education and skill.
1 was rather alarmed at my hon. Friend's suggestion—indeed allegation, for it was not refuted by the Government—that the Metrication Board's request for a budget of spending money for consumer education had been turned down. I hope that we shall have some extra information on metrication when the Minister winds up.
Finally, on the question of exemptions, I take the point of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) about Labour and Tory Party fetes selling dog food. I should have thought that rather more appropriate to the Liberal Party, but I am sure that whatever party is selling dog food at a bazaar we need not be unduly worried by unit pricing there.
The point about exemptions generally was raised in the debate on 4th July. There are three basic categories. There is the category in which unit pricing would lead to nonsensical decimal points. I think that might be so. If I were to put down "·0063 ", for example, probably very few people would know what it was all about. Instead of being a help, such a form of pricing would be a handicap which none of us would want. I accept the exemption of a charity, although sometimes we might want to define what some of the charities are.
I come to the third category—those with a small turnover. This causes me some concern. I see the point of the small shopkeeper, but the people who go to the small shops are small shoppers and if it comes to the crunch and one has to come down on one side or the other I should prefer that we came down
606
in favour of the small shopper—the elderly person who is forced to go to the shop on the corner or across the road—rather than the shopkeeper. I am sure that the trade could find some way of helping out the small shopkeeper, but if we are concerned here with consumer protection—and I take it that the Bill is a part of consumer protection—our chief aim should be to give maximum protection to the shopper.
Sir G. Howe: If I may emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not underestimate the important part played by the small shop in meeting the demands of many consumers and, in particular, as he says, those of the small shopper. But in considering the balance between those demands and what is provided, one must bear in mind that it has been found in other countries that placing an obligation on the small shop run by one man or one family to unit-price every article can raise the price of the goods being sold, to the disadvantage of the small shopper.
It may be possible, even in the small shop, to go a long way towards helping the small shopper by shelf display of unit prices, which is not very expensive. That is one of the options to be considered. Of course, one of the advantages of the small shop, by contrast with the supermarket where the small shopper quite frequently can find nobody to ask to get information on a human basis, as it were—one cannot ask a check-out point—is that in the small shop frequently one still has the retailer himself or his family whom one can ask, "Now, how do these compare?". All these factors must be balanced very carefully. I am sure the Government have firmly in mind the needs of the small shopper and the rôle to be played by the small shopkeeper.
Mr. Jones: I take the point that there must be this balance. But if one has to come down on one side or the other my inclination would be to come down more on the side of the shopper than on the side of the shopkeeper. I take it that we would all agree that there should not be any blanket exemption right across the board at this level. Even the small shopkeeper should be encouraged to do everything possible to introduce as much unit pricing as is reasonable.

607
When the Minister opened the debate he told us that he welcomed the Bill. He then spent a lot of time talking about the limitations, the difficulties and the exemptions. He got me a little worried because I thought he was speaking more against the Bill than in favour of it. Taking into account all the time that has elapsed since the hon. Gentleman first introduced the Bill, we ought to be in a better position than we seem to be at the present moment. We all say we welcome it. The Minister is saying that we will have all these consultations again. In fact what we are saying is that we welcome the Bill but we do not really know what we are welcoming; we do not know how we will introduce it; we are not sure when it is to be introduced or what is to be the extent of its coverage. But with all those qualifications, we welcome it. This seems to me to indicate some lack of urgency. I would urge the Government to be at least as pressing in this matter as the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has been in the past.
11.52 a.m.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: A good deal has been said in the Committee about welcoming this type of legislation, and I certainly join in the warm reception that the Bill has been given. The need is well established, and has been for some time, for a form of consumer protection of this type. I call it "consumer protection" rather than "housewives' protection" because I do not look on it as a "housewives' charter". I think it goes further than that. As somebody who has always been particularly concerned about getting value for money, I welcome it too.
Although I cannot boast of having to do a good deal of marketing to feed a large family, whenever I go to the supermarket, about 50 per cent. of my time is spent in trying to calculate how I am to get that value for money. This is particularly so when it comes to liquids, such as orange juices. As I am not good at mental arithmetic, a good deal of my time is spent on trying to work these things out to see how I can get the best value.
The Minister mentioned this morning that he felt that prescribed quantities were preferable and much has been said
608
about this, particularly in relation to jams and marmalades. I should like to make a point here about detergents. A prescribed quantity of detergent is sold in a particular prescribed package but one often finds that there is not the amount of detergent inside the package which one was led to believe was there at the time of purchase.
It seems that the legislation is directed particularly at chain stores and supermarkets. The Minister has made the point that unit pricing is working in America. I happen to have been a consumer in America for a little time and I know that it works well for the consumer, but I have little knowledge of how it is enforced there. It is important that the small shopper be taken care of in this legislation.
I want to make a plea here for the older families, the single-unit families, those who live alone. They very often find that particularly dry goods cannot be used up within a week or two. The package is too large; the quantity in the package is much too large for the pensioner or the one-person family. I shall not go on to advertise the various detergents or types of cornflakes, but quite often the quality and value has diminished within two or three weeks. I therefore make a plea for smaller packaging for the single person and for the older consumer.
I am not clear about the enforcement of this legislation. It seems to me to lack a great many teeth. I do not know whether fines will be imposed or exactly how it will work. Although I welcome the Bill, I feel that there will have to be a good deal of reconciliation so as to deal with some of the difficulties and anomalies in the legislation. However, in general I give it a warm welcome.
11.56 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am very pleased to be winding up this debate. Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Miss Boothroyd), I am a consumer, and, as a housewife, I hope to benefit directly from the Bill in due course. It shows that the Government are serious in their determination to help consumers to shop more intelligently. I personally have benefited greatly from

609
listening to the debate this morning and from the contributions made by members on both sides of the Committee. All that has been said shows the great interest that hon. Members have been taking in the ways that we can help people to judge value for money more easily and directly.
A number of points have been raised and I should like to deal with them. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) referred, as did a number of hon. Members, to metrication. Hon. Members will have noticed that Clause 1(4) gives power to require imperial or metric units of measurement or both. The Consumer Safeguards Group of the Metrication Board has reported on the advantages and the difficulties of unit pricing in metric change. We will explore the use of powers in the metric changeover in detail. In some cases it will be particularly valuable.
The hon. Member made a point about advertising and information on metric change. The Metrication Board has been discharging its continuing responsibility for disseminating information on metrication and its programme of advertising is under more or less continuous discussion with Ministers. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Swansea, West shops very often for food, but if so he would know that metrication has yet to begin for food standard quantities. This will be introduced from 1974 onwards.
Mr. Alan Williams: I do not want to break the pattern of the Minister's speech, but I should like her to confirm that this year the Metrication Board, in addition to a budget for industrial publicity work, asked for a consumer budget and the Government have not given it a budget for advice to the consumer. This is my criticism. The body set up to advise the Government on how best to implement metrication has said that the consumer campaign should already have started, yet the Government have refused to give the money for which the Metrication Board has asked.
Mrs. Fenner: No, on the contrary. The consumer advertising will take place within the next year, during 1974. As the early metrication orders come into effect they will proceed with special
610
advertising in the popular Press during 1974, with particular emphasis on basic information about metric unit pricing. Does that satisfy the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Williams: I am sorry. The hon. Lady is in a difficult position. She is not in the Department responsible for metrication and I do not want to press her into making statements which we can perhaps show not to be quite accurate. The fact is that, for this current year, the Metrication Board asked for a budget for consumer education. I know that this is outside the hon. Lady's remit and we shall not take her to task if there is any slip here, but the Committee must understand that this money was asked for for the current year and the Government did not give it.
Mrs. Fenner: I have nothing further to add but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on that my right hon. and learned Friend will answer it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did several other hon. Members, the five months that had elapsed since the Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend. I should like, too, to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) who first introduced the Bill on Unit Pricing. His skill in advocacy has greatly contributed to the Government's decision to introduce their own Bill. My hon. Friend may have lost his Bill but he has certainly gained his point. I realise that five months have elapsed, but there has been a great deal of consultation.
As hon. Members will be aware, under Section 21 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 powers are given to the Secretary of State to make orders
"to ensure that in such cases or in such circumstances as may be so specified the goods in question are sold …"
or marked in a particular way. And Section 54(2) of that Act required the Secretary of State to consult about the subject matter of any order. It would have been premature to consult about individual proposals until the limits of power were known.
Furthermore, I noted with some delight that the hon. Member for Swansea, West quoted the enthusiasm of the Opposition for all the measures. But the Government have carried out a large number of consumer measures, probably more than

611
any Government before, in the light of increasing knowledge and support of consumerism in the whole of the Western world. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that we certainly cannot do it all at once. Nevertheless, the Bill is before hon. Members today.
Another point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which was referred to again by his hon. Friend, was his concern about the shortage of inspectors. He will know that staffing is entirely a matter for the local authorities which employ them. We have no national figures available, but we know that, in some of the existing boroughs, there are serious shortages in the weights and measures department, particularly in South Wales. But he will recognise that, with the reorganisation of local government, the number of weights and measures authorities will be reduced from 230 to around 85; this will enable local authorities to concentrate staff more effectively and more efficiently.
Mr. Alan Williams: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point—again I realise it is outside her departmental remit—the fact is that it is no defence to say on the one hand that the staffing of the weights and measures inspectorate is a matter for local authorities when, on the other hand, Parliament—the Ministry—is imposing the extra workloads on the weights and measures inspectorate. It did so under the Fair Trading Act, it will do so under consumer credit legislation and it is now intending to do so under unit pricing. I find it incredible to have the admission today that the Department, in imposing all this extra workload, does not have the information on the capacity of the weights and measures inspectorate to do the work which we are being asked to give it. The reorganisation of the local authorities will make no difference to their ability to recruit weights and measures staff because in many of the larger authorities there are already serious shortages.
Mrs. Fenner: I know the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that there is staff to enforce the legislation.
Mr. Cormack: Perhaps I can help. I think it is true to say that the inspectorate has indicated not only its willingness,
612
but its eagerness to police such legislation.
Mr. Williams: If it has the staff.
Mrs. Fenner: If we could leave that point—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will set down any Questions to the appropriate Ministry.
Mr. Finsberg: Would my hon. Friend tell her right hon. and learned Friend that there is a real problem on this, particularly in London, which has been reorganised, where there is a desperate shortage of weights and measures inspectors? We understand full well that the inspectorate wants to do these jobs. The real trouble is that not enough recruits are coming in. If she would tell her right hon. and learned Friend this it would be of some help.
Mrs. Fenner: I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's observations.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned visual misrepresentation by jam manufacturers in 12-ounce containers. I should point out that jam manufacturers have now deliberately changed the shape of the 12 ounce and one pound jars to ensure that the consumer is no longer confused. It may well be possible to deal with this, if it happens again, under the Fair Trading Act or even under the Trade Descriptions Act or the Food and Drugs Act in order to protect the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock, whom I again congratulate in passing, referred to the small retailers. My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to them particularly in regard to what exemptions there will be. I am sure hon. Members will recognise that we wanted to hear the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides today and that we are taking the closest consultation on and consideration of any areas of exemptions. We have had the opportunity to see the experiments and the research carried out into these techniques both at home and abroad. We have been considerably helped by studying the published results of this work and from seeing unit pricing schemes in operation in various countries and in shops in this country. I should like, too, to pay particular tribute to the valuable

613
experimental work that has been done in this country over the last two years by the Consumers Association and the Metrication Board, as well as a number of retail firms which joined in these experiment.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) asked who was responsible for ensuring that the unit price was on the goods. I would draw his attention to the fact that, under the Weights and Measures Act, the requirement is on those who sell, or offer for sale, at the point of sale. Clearly they will still be able to make special offers. There will be no inhibition on proper, authentic, special offers.
The hon. Member was concerned about the quality of that great indigenous product from his constituency. Perhaps he will take the point that it is only as a result of listening to the contributions about quality and the concern of hon. Members about specific parts of the Bill in this debate that we can value the importance of considering other things beside the straight unit price. We are most conscious of this in the food sector covered by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) referred to the home-made jam which could be sold in the Labour Party or Conservative Party bazaars. This is one of the areas we shall have to study closely.
Mr. Jones: Not jam—dog food.
Mr. Fenner: My hon. Friend referred to jam, but I noted with what dexterity the hon. Member switched to dog food, because it made his point very well indeed.
We shall, of course, be debating the Bill in much more detail in Standing Committee, but since it is short, straightforward and not basically controversial, I think we shall be able to make speedy progress. May I direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Swansea, West who was a little pessimistic about the swift progress of the Bill? The sooner the Bill is on the Statute Book the easier it will be for us to ensure that implementation of unit pricing in suitable areas is not too long delayed.
614
In this connection hon. Members will have noticed the important difference between the present Bill and the earlier Bills on the same subject. Our Bill provides that, where unit pricing is to be applied to foodstuffs, the order will be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So my Department will thus be closely involved with the implementation of any unit pricing schemes for food. I can assure the Committee that the special knowledge of the food industry will be brought to bear fully in the framing of the orders.
Hon Members have, fairly naturally, displayed an interest in knowing which products may be early candidates for unit pricing orders should the Bill become law. There may, of course, be products on which consumers now have difficulty in judging value for money, and the fact that these order-making powers exist will encourage traders to introduce unit pricing voluntarily. It is always helpful to make progress by voluntary means. We are seeking to do this in my Department in relation to date marking prior to the legislation, and we find that many sections of the food industry are moving into voluntary date marking in advance of the legislation. It is useful that this sort of approach is possible.
It is agreed by consumer representatives and others with an interest in this subject, as we have agreed today, that standard quantity packing is usually the best and most easily recognisable method of helping consumers to judge value and that products in standard packs do not need to be unit priced in addition. It is the quickest way for the housewife and the consumer to make a judgment of value for money on a standard pack. The Government are currently engaged in discussions about the possibility of extending the list of items which must be packed in prescribed standard quantities. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend and his officials are in touch with the food trade about the possibility of prescribed quantities for biscuits, a matter which has been giving housewives and consumers a great deal of concern. In conformity with the recent EEC directive on cocoa and chocolate, prescribed quantities will also be introduced for chocolate bars. That is another

615
matter that I have often heard referred to in the House.
There are, however, a number of goods for which standard packs are impractiable and for which unit pricing is the most suitable alternative. In fact, many countries which have experimented with unit pricing have a combination of both—as many standard packs and prescribed quantities as can practicably be managed, and unit pricing for those that cannot. Unit pricing in this country is already a widespread practice in many shops selling fresh foods such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. My right hon. and learned Friend has referred specifically to apples, which are always quoted in price per pound. But I am bound to say—and I have expressed my disappointment publicly on many occasions—that, following the beef inquiry and the preparation by the Meat and Livestock Commission of a wallchart which would have enabled butchers to do their own unit pricing of the various cuts, this was, regrettably, taken up by too few butchers. One knows well that many supermarkets already prepack meat and that this is unit-priced; cheese and other food items in supermarkets are often unit-priced. But 75 per cent. of meat is sold over the counter of what we call the High Street butcher as opposed to the 25 per cent. from supermarkets which is unit-priced.
Unit pricing or a system of that kind is, therefore, of great value to the housewife in choosing meat. It is suggested that it can be on the article, adjacent to the article or on a wall within the shop. One could ensure that there was an MLC-type chart on the wall showing the unit price under this legislation.
Mr. Alan Williams: As the hon. Lady has expressed her profound disappointment that this was not taken up, and as she has said that 75 per cent. of meat is sold through those stores which have tended to be the most reluctant to take it up, are we to understand that meat will be one of the priorities on which the Government will require action? If not, what is the point of the consultation?
Mrs. Fenner: That is my point. We are particularly considering whether fresh foods such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables
616
are good candidates for orders on unit pricing. My right hon. and learned Friend has already indicated the sorts of non-food candidates for early consideration of unit pricing orders.
My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have referred specifically to small retailers. I emphasise that we shall not use the order-making powers without the fullest consultation with all the interests affected. There will always be a number of points on which we shall wish to satisfy ourselves before an order is made. One of the most important clearly will be the possible cost implications. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said that he was thinking particularly of the shopper. When one is looking at the candidates in the fresh food range for unit pricing one must consider not only the shoppers and the shopkeepers but the relative value of a unit price for any fresh food to the shoppers and the degree to which that might need to be reflected in prices. That we do not wish to see.
We also must consider the extent to which consumers will be able to understand and use the unit marking on a particular commodity and what, therefore, will be the best way of marking the goods. All these aspects are important and that is why, before making orders, we shall consider very carefully the advice of those with practical shopping experience—consumers, retailers and manufacturers.
This has been a very interesting debate. I hope that, with the support of hon. Members opposite, we shall soon see the Bill on the Statute Book in order to enable us to make the orders at the earliest possible date and to ensure the implementation of unit pricing where it will most benefit the housewife and consumer to make value-for-money judgments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Unit Pricing Bill ought to be read a second time.
Committee rose at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Chairman)

Harper, Mr.

Boothroyd, Miss

Hiley, Mr.

Cormack, Mr.

Howe, Sir G.

Cox, Mr. Thomas

Jones, Mr. Alec

Douglas, Mr.

Luce, Mr.

Ewing, Mr.

Milne, Mr.

Fenner, Mrs.

Stott, Mr.

Finsberg, Mr. Geoffrey

Williams, Mr. Alan

Fox, Mr.

618

SCOTLAND
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Housing (Thermal Insulation)
  Housing (Thermal Insulation)
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  School Building (Planning Applications)
  School Building (Planning Applications)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Day Care Centres
  Day Care Centres
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Civil and Political Rights (UN Covenants)
  Civil and Political Rights (UN Covenants)
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Syria (Israeli Prisoners)
  Syria (Israeli Prisoners)
  Yugoslavia (Convicted British Subjects)
  Yugoslavia (Convicted British Subjects)
ENVIRONMENT
  Invalid Vehicles (Parking)
  Invalid Vehicles (Parking)
  Housing Land (Green Belt)
  Housing Land (Green Belt)
  British Rail (Commuter Services)
  British Rail (Commuter Services)
  Ilford (Development Plans)
  Ilford (Development Plans)
  Housing Action Area (South Shields)
  Housing Action Area (South Shields)
  House Building (London)
  House Building (London)
  Buildings (Vibration Damage)
  Buildings (Vibration Damage)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise Levels)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise Levels)
  Vehicle Loading
  Vehicle Loading
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Four Marks (Drainage Scheme)
  Four Marks (Drainage Scheme)
  Fluorspar Crushing Plant (Weardale)
  Fluorspar Crushing Plant (Weardale)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Water Supplies (Charges)
  Water Supplies (Charges)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Operation Eyesore (Hull)
  Operation Eyesore (Hull)
  Local Authority Membership (Irish Citizens)
  Local Authority Membership (Irish Citizens)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Transplant Operations (Costs)
  Transplant Operations (Costs)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Maternity Patients
  Maternity Patients
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  National Insurance (Women Employees)
  National Insurance (Women Employees)
  Audiologists
  Audiologists
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Invalid Vehicles (Repairs)
  Invalid Vehicles (Repairs)
  Hospital (Goole)
  Hospital (Goole)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Malt Whisky
  Malt Whisky
  Driving Instruction
  Driving Instruction
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Tracked Hovercraft Site (Earith)
  Tracked Hovercraft Site (Earith)
  Engineers (Register)
  Engineers (Register)
  Motor Vehicles ("Free Gift" Petrol)
  Motor Vehicles ("Free Gift" Petrol)
  Petrol Stations (Ownership)
  Petrol Stations (Ownership)
  Fuel and Electricity Supplies (Emergency Regulations)
  Fuel and Electricity Supplies (Emergency Regulations)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building (West Riding)
  School Building (West Riding)
  Schools (Rural Areas)
  Schools (Rural Areas)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Remedial Education Centres
  Remedial Education Centres
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Indian Engineers (Recruitment)
  Indian Engineers (Recruitment)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Seals
  Seals
  Crown Courts
  Crown Courts
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Exports and Imports (Recording)
  Exports and Imports (Recording)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Community Relations Commission
  Community Relations Commission
  Portavogie
  Portavogie
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Cattle Smuggling
  Cattle Smuggling
  Community Relations
  Community Relations
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Tripartite Talks
  Tripartite Talks
  Housing
  Housing
  Council of Ireland
  Council of Ireland
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Allotment Gardens
  Allotment Gardens
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Lamb
  Lamb
  Pigs (Battery Cages)
  Pigs (Battery Cages)
  Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit)
  Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit)
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Barley and Denatured Wheat
  Barley and Denatured Wheat
  North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
  North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants and Loans)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Meat (Inspection)
  Meat (Inspection)
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Bread and Cake Prices
  Bread and Cake Prices
NATIONAL FINANCE
  North Sea Oil (Costs and Allowances)
  North Sea Oil (Costs and Allowances)
  Economic Expansion
  Economic Expansion
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Value Added Tax (Museums and Galleries)
  Value Added Tax (Museums and Galleries)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Police Action (Colchester)
  Police Action (Colchester)
  Dog Kennels (Licensing)
  Dog Kennels (Licensing)
  United States Citizen (Teaching Post)
  United States Citizen (Teaching Post)
  WILLS (PUBLICITY)
  WILLS (PUBLICITY)
EMPLOYMENT
  Mining Industry (Dispute)
  Mining Industry (Dispute)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Enfield Automotive Limited
  Enfield Automotive Limited
  Wage Rates and Earnings
  Wage Rates and Earnings
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Christmas Trees (Lighting)
  Christmas Trees (Lighting)
  Motor Vehicles (Electric Propulsion)
  Motor Vehicles (Electric Propulsion)
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  RB211
  RB211
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Oil
  Oil
  Small Firms (Information Centres)
  Small Firms (Information Centres)
  Petrol Ration Books
  Petrol Ration Books

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

E.E.C. AND GERMAN INTERNAL TRADE
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to remove the advantages accruing to the German Democratic Republic through its so-called "inter-German" free trade with the Federal Republic of Germany, without the German Democratic Republic assuming any of the obligations—fiscal, economic or otherwise—of members of the E.E.C.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, as members of the European Community Her Majesty's Government are party to the Protocol on German Internal Trade and Connected Problems annexed to the E.E.C. Treaty. It is under this Protocol that the German Democratic Republic has, in the market of the Federal Republic of Germany, the advantage of having its trade treated as internal and not external.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask why this hard-line Communist country, at the very moment that it is reportedly sending volunteer pilots and electronic experts to Egypt, should enjoy free trade and save millions of pounds a year in tariffs without incurring any mutual obligations borne by full members of the Community? Secondly, does this situation mean that East German goods can find their way free of duty, or with reduced tariffs, to Member States of the Common Market other than the Federal German Republic? Finally, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will
1152
instruct our Permanent Representative at the Common Market in Brussels to join the Netherlands Government in vigorously seeking to alter this present arrangement?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the German internal Protocol Agreement with the East Germans is connected with internal trade. I do not dissent from the description of the German Democratic Republic as a Communist country, but the advantages it obtains are in connection with internal trade with Germany. As regards the second question, both the Common Market countries and the Federal Republic itself are concerned to prevent any spill-over into the Common Market. Although theoretically a gap could exist, they have no evidence that a substantial misuse is taking place. As regards the third question, I know that the Common Market Ministers are all interested in this question, and I can say that it will remain under their scrutiny.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack confirm what was said from the Front Bench earlier this year; namely, that the Government would watch this matter very seriously in case difficulties should arise from it? Would he not agree that as things stand this Protocol does amount to a gaping hole in the Common External Tariff?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. We are watching it like a cat outside a mousehole, but so far no mouse has come out. As for the "gaping hole", I suppose that all mouseholes gape, but the question is how many mice are inside.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether in the course of these negotiations watch is being kept by members of the E.E.C., including ourselves, to ensure that, in regard to disadvantages which affect citizens of the respective countries in the E.E.C., as well as in the world, those who have suffered from Nazi persecution owing to the action of East Germany are properly compensated and given reparation for the material losses they have sustained?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to inter-zonal trade between East

1153
Germany and the Federal Republic. If the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question about compensation for Nazi persecution, I am sure that I or one of my noble friends will be very happy to answer it.

EAST BERLIN'S LEGAL STATUS
2.38 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the legal status of East Berlin, and in what respect it differs from that of West Berlin.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the legal status of East and West Berlin is the same; both are part of the Special Berlin Area established by the four war-time Allies at the end of the last war.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I know that this is a very complicated matter, but I should like to ask three supplementary questions in the light of my noble and learned friend's reply. In view of the legal situation, why do the documents which constitute the quadrupartite Agreement, September 3, 1971, and which I think came into force on June 3, 1972, contain no references to East Berlin, as such? Is it not the fact that the Soviet communication to the representatives of the Western Powers in that Agreement implied that East Berlin is an integral part of the German Democratic Republic? Thirdly, I should like to ask, since Annex IV A 2(c) of those documents states clearly that,
"The Federal Republic of Germany may represent interests of the Western Sectors of Berlin in international organisations and international conferences",
why it is that the Soviet Union are now disputing the right of the Federal Government to represent the interests of the people of West Berlin at the United Nations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend asked me about the legal status of the two parts of Berlin. I must say that if he had wanted to ask this very important and substantial question he should have given me notice. As
1154
the noble Lord probably knows, the Russians and the East Germans now consider East Berlin as the capital of the German Democratic Republic, but the Western Allies have never accepted this position.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say a little more about the position at the United Nations?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I really think that that should be put down as a separate Question.

BRITISH EMBASSIES AND RIGHT OF ASYLUM
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the standing instructions to British Embassies as to providing security and refuge for British nationals whose lives and freedom are endangered, and to what extent the traditional right of asylum is available (if possible) to nationals of:

(a) Commonwealth and British Colonial countries;

(b) Common Market and NATO countries; and

(c) Other countries.

EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is the duty of a British Embassy to take all proper steps to safeguard the interests, including the personal security, of British subjects, including Commonwealth citizens whose country has no Mission here. The Head of a Diplomatic Mission has no general right in international law to grant asylum, and must surrender a refugee to the territorial authorities on their request. The possibility of asylum stems from the inviolability which is enjoyed by the premises in which it is sought, and clearly this must not be abused. Requests for asylum are therefore in general refused, although an Ambassador has discretion to grant asylum if there are extreme humanitarian grounds, such as the need to rescue a person fleeing from mob violence. The nationality of the person seeking asylum is probably irrelevant to the existence of

1155
a right to grant asylum on humanitarian grounds.
LORD HALE: My Lords, may I, with complete sincerity, thank the noble Earl for that comprehensive, clear and informative Answer, which I hope he will forgive me for saying will correct some misapprehensions which have seemed, on one side or the other, to creep in when we have discussed this matter? On previous occasions discussions have taken place rather suddenly, with no opportunity for full consideration. So far as I am concerned. I am happy about what the noble Earl has said and I do not think I need to ask a supplementary question; nor need I refer to some of those controversial occasions recently which have given cause for doubt.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD HALE: My Lords, I apologise for being so long; but, after all, the Question is finishing, so far as I am concerned, a good deal sooner than it was likely to.

SOUTH WEST AFRICA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.47 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached by the United Nations Security Council regarding negotiations with the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the future of Namibia and what view was expressed on behalf of the United Kingdom.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Security Council began discussion of South West Africa on December 10 in the light of Dr. Waldheim's report on his last round of talks with the South African Government on the future of the territory. Yesterday the Council unanimously adopted a resolution discontinuing Dr. Waldheim's mission entrusted to him by a resolution of February. 1972, but
1156
also asking him to keep the Council informed about any important new developments. The debate is to be continued and our representative will explain our position later in the proceedings.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not a little futile, as our own representatives have indicated in the past, for the Security Council to adopt resolutions which it does not have the power to implement? Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to suggest to the Security Council that it might summon representatives of the republic of South Africa and the political parties in Namibia to meet with the Security Council to try to find some solution to this problem?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree that it must be futile to adopt resolutions which you have no power to implement. I will take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and, in case it can be implemented, I will pass it on to my right honourable friend.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he has changed his role? Having had such full and satisfactory answers on subjects, I wondered whether he had been promoted to a Lord-in-Waiting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I apologise for my occasional incursions into foreign politics, but I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been rather overworked this week, and so an idle fellow like me is only too willing to help.

STATE OF EMERGENCY
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement about the continuation of the State of Emergency.

THE CONSTITUTION: ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT
2.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–73; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to express the feelings of gratitude that all your Lordships must have to the members of the Royal Commission on the Constitution who toiled so long and so well. We know on these Benches, from the frequent and sorely missed absences of my noble friend Lord Foot, how much work they did, and we are grateful. We are delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Crowther-Hunt, are able to speak to-day in the debate, and are sad that the late Lord Crowther should not still be with us. We are thankful because, after all, we have two Reports for the price of one—at least two Reports for the price of one if one analyses them. We have some very important volumes of evidence, to which I shall be returning later, and a number of research papers, each of which would be worth a debate in its own right, and one or two of which are extremely important indeed. I should not like it to be thought that the criticism which my speech will make on one particular aspect of this Report in any way detracts from our gratitude for, and admiration of, the work of the Commission.
My Lords, there are two objects in calling this debate at this moment on this subject. First, we believe it right that there should be a preliminary airing of a tremendously important subject. Now that the debate over Europe is, with due respect to Mr. Peter Shore, more or less over, this debate and subject will become more and more important and will be the main constitutional one in forthcoming years. Secondly, we unashamedly wish to make a political point. We do not believe that either of the other two Parties will move on this matter, and we wish publicly to nail our colours to the mast. For that reason, we make no apology whatsoever for what has been described in some cases as an unduly early moment of discussion on this Report.
The Party which I have the honour to represent has been working on this subject for years, both during the sitting of the Kilbrandon Commission, and since. We believe that if other people have not been paying as much attention to this subject as we have, it is not necessarily a good thing, and it is largely because they know that for their Parties it is one of the hottest of hot potatoes. The Liberal record on this subject, if not impeccable, is at least of considerable standing and importance. We have stood for Home Rule for Wales and Scotland of some kind since at least Asquith in 1918. We have been working on the details in the years between. The Scottish Liberal Party, the Welsh Liberal Party, the Northern Ireland Liberal Party, the English Liberal Party and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe in person, have given five lots of evidence to the Commission.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He has mentioned the Common Market. I wonder whether he would care to answer a question which has always puzzled me about the attitude of the Liberal Party in this respect. How do they reconcile their support for devolution—the noble Lord has just said that they support devolution—with their attitude to the E.E.C.? How do they, at one and the same time, support devolution in Great Britain, while supporting the idea that Great Britain should hand over some of her sovereign powers to a European Parliament?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness might wait until I am more than two minutes into my speech and have raised the subject, which I am obviously going to do before intervening. This did not arise from anything that I said. Of course I will deal with that point and explain exactly why I think that going into Europe and devolution are two parts of the same coin and must happen at the same time. But I will come to that in due course.
I do not therefore want to do a tour d'horizon of the whole Report; it would be a mammoth task. I want to concentrate on one major point. Incidentally, I want to ask the Government two simple questions. I have not given them notice of them because I know what

1159
the answers are. The two simple questions are: what are they going to do about the Report and when are they going to do it? I know perfectly well that the answers are, "nothing" and "never". The reasons for this are simple, because there is a tremendous interest in the status quo in both the Labour and Conservative Parties, and, indeed, in Parliament as such, and it would be foolish for any of us to deny this. This subject is as revolutionary and explosive for the future of the Parliament in this country—and I do not dodge this issue —as anything since the Treaty of Rome or the Guy Fawkes plot.
Our position is simple: we agreed with the analysis contained in the Majority Report to the extent that:
"Government is remote and insufficiently sensitive to the views and feelings of the people."
We do not feel that the implications are followed through by the Majority Report, but we endorse the belief expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and Professor Peacock, in their Memorandum of Dissent when they say that the necessary reforms should have three main objectives: first, to counter the decline they consider has taken place this century in the extent to which the British people govern themselves; secondly, to reduce the present excessive burdens on the institutions of Central Government; thirdly, to provide adequate means for the redress of individual grievances. That is the diagnosis. What is the cure? Considering that we disagree with every single member of the Commission about the ultimate solution, it is amazing how much we agree almost entirely on a great many of the premises and the intermediate points. I understand that it was accepted by everybody on the Commission—and members of the Commission may correct me if this is wrong—that if Scotland and Wales could be dealt with in isolation (that is, without thinking about what you did about England, the regions or anything else) there would be no doubt that you would go for legislative devolution.
The trouble begins when one comes to consider the relationship with England and the relationship with the Provinces in England. We agree with that legislative devolution. The snag, according to the Minority Report, and
1160
according to some other members of the Commission, which we entirely accept, is that every citizen must be given similar rights. It would be unjust to give the Scots and the Welsh power in their own Parliaments and over England, but English people power only over the English Parliament and not the Scots and Welsh Parliament. I think we would all agree with this; I do not much mind; we are used to being ruled by the Scottish, Welsh and Irish. In this Chamber alone on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is I believe a Bruce Pryce from Glamorgan; the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a McPherson of Kirgussie; and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, is a Thomson of Aberdeen with overtones of Grant and Buchan. The noble Lords, Lord Colville of Culross, Lord Polwarth, Lord Limerick, Lord Gowrie and Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal are led of all things by a Hennessy of Balymacmay. Very nice, too! We do not complain; we are not worried; we are very happy that this should happen. Basically we agree with the Commission on this point.
Legislative devolution for Scotland and Wales is desirable; uniformity of political rights is desirable. What is missing seems to us to be the logical conclusion: that there should be legislative devolution for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. I am delighted that in the course of this debate the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is to speak. I have not been talking about Northern Ireland, and I am not going to talk about it in my speech because, in view of the present circumstances, this is a rather different situation.
Let us examine why no one came out in favour of the Federal solution. Well, you can answer that only by looking at the Report and seeing what they said about it. Frankly, looking at the Report, I get the conclusion that they did not even seriously consider it—that the presuppositions prevented the inquiry. It is true that 39 paragraphs and at least three research papers are devoted to this particular point; but the arguments are remarkably thin. There are two kinds of arguments against federalism which come out of the Report. The first is that it is
"an awkward system to operate",
or (when they refer to Canada)
"greater insistence on provincial sovereignty tends to make things more difficult not less'.

1161
That is the first point: that it is awkward and difficult and a slowing down operation. The second point is that it would involve, in England,
"an artificial division unacceptable to the people of England",
or, in other words, it being
"not wanted by the people of England".
The first point, about its being difficult to work, is I think an absolutely fair one so far as it goes. Federalism is clumsy, slow, and in a sense inefficient. But perhaps there are things more important than efficiency, and that is something which I do not think the Commission really considered, even though there are some interesting points about it in Research Paper No. 1 on Federal Germany, which I will come to later. It may be, and we hold that it is, that we shall not satisfy people's desires for power over their own lives unless they devolve a degree of legislative power which will, in fact, mean federalism, even if this does mean a certain lack of efficiency. This is particularly so, now that power has moved up to Brussels. Here is where I come to the point of the noble Baroness. It seems to us that the more power goes up, the more power over their own lives is taken away from the people and given to a larger centre of power, the more important it is to devolve the smaller decisions over their lives as far as humanly can be.
It is one thing to be angry about the fact that things are centralised in London and one is not being able to do anything about it; but if they are centralised in Brussels and also in London, then it is far worse. Therefore the only course that can be taken to overcome this is, in fact, to devolve a lot of powers downwards as well. That this raises real and difficult constitutional problems as it affects the Parliament at Westminster I have no doubt and do not seek to conceal. It may be that we are moving into a period of less growth, a moment where efficiency and speed will become less important to the people of this country than control over their own lives, when there will be more emphasis on small units and less on big. So far as I can see, these questions were not seriously examined—at least it does not come out in the Report.
1162
The second point: that they raise, as to whether a federal solution is wanted by or acceptable to the people of England, is extremely important; but it comes subsequent to the point as to whether or not it is good for England. A Royal Commission can, and probably should, comment on the points of whether it is acceptable to Parliament, whether it is politically acceptable, whether, in fact, people want it; but it seems to me, with respect, that they should not form part of the argument. That point is one for the Parliament of this Kingdom, and the people. Whether federation is acceptable to the people of England I do not know, and again, with respect, neither does the Commission, because the question has never seriously been put. The whole federal question is one of those things which remained in the "Never-Never Land" and was not mentioned by anybody except the Liberals, in the same way as, for quite a number of years, the Common Market was one of those questions which was never seriously discussed in public except by the Liberals. Until it has been put before the people of England, and until it has been discussed seriously, as it should have been in the Report of this Commission, we shall not be able to have the faintest idea of whether it is acceptable or, indeed, desired by the people of England. This is the nub of my complaint, because I think there is a serious number of vested interests who want to see that that subject is not seriously put.
The other two arguments which were produced come briefly in the Minority Report. One is that it is somehow unrealistic to move sovereignty downward when in more and more subjects it is moving upwards. I hope I have at least tried to answer the noble Baroness's point about that matter thought no doubt other noble Lords will have points to raise on it. The second is that
"legislative devolution would not seem to reduce the burden on central Government."
I do not follow this point at all, and it does not appear to be particularly supported by evidence. It appears to go against common sense. The only excuse that I can think of for it is that it possibly stems from a feeling that you could not give too much power downwards, anyway, and therefore "old Nannie", the Mother of Parliaments, would still

1163
be doing as much work, looking after what the children were doing
On the other hand, and still taking the subject of federation, I move to the extremely important Research Paper No. 1 by Mr. Nevil Johnson on Federal Government in Germany, which produces quite a large number of points which again I think have been given insufficient attention. For instance, paragraph 122 of this Report says:
"… to ask whether a federal system of government is more `efficient' than a unitary one, is to ask a question to which there can be no definite answer: there is unlikely to be a common understanding of 'efficiency' (which in any event is a term shaped by values embedded in the social system) …".
This is indeed the argument that I am making, that the Commission did not look at whether, in fact, efficiency was necessarily a criterion and whether we should be prepared to give up efficiency in favour of other things.
In paragraph 125 the Research Paper says:
" … federalism … achieves a dispersion of responsibilities which act as a check on the central government and provides opportunities for initiative in the discharge of public functions by other levels of government which are far more substantial than those found in Great Britain."
This is in the Federation in Germany. That is something I and my friends would very much like to see. Paragraph 127 says:
"… the contemporary German structure is of interest to Britain only because it is a decentralised system in which no single part dominates all the rest. If it offers hints for decentralisation in Britain, these point to across-the-board decentralisation applying to England just as much as to the other parts of the United Kingdom."
And finally, paragraph 135 says:
"If it is held that there is, except in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, insufficient regional consciousness to support popularly-elected authorities, then again German experience is of interest, because it shows that in time even artificial and awkwardly constructed territorial units can through institutionalisation gain political viability. Similar developments could take place in England once a provincial structure based on election had been established."
That seems to me to meet to a very large extent the argument that this is not acceptable to the British people.
I hope I have now said enough to show that there is a case for federalism. I do not for one moment expect to convince
1164
your Lordships to-day that it is the right answer. What I am trying to suggest is that it should have been treated more seriously than it has been; and that it should from now on be treated more seriously than it has been. But this will take some time. In the meantime, I am not so concerned with uniformity except that—and I think my noble friends go along with this idea—probably there should be equal political rights for all citizens. But I am not so concerned with it that I think it should stand in the way of legislative devolution to elected Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, which they have for so long desired and deserved and towards which Kilbrandon points the way forward.
It will fall to my noble friends Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Thurso to say the nice things about Kilbrandon that need to be said and to argue the case for Scotland and Wales. I should not like it to be thought that, just because I have concentrated on England—which in this case looks as if it is going to be the rather poor relation—I do not support them very strongly in the case which I know they are going to make.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that England will be the poor relation. But will it not be England that will do the paying?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: That may well be, my Lords, and I will leave that particular point to be dealt with by my noble friends. I merely meant "poor relation" in terms of the amount of words that are likely to be spent upon the various parts of this Report over the next period of time and throughout the next General Election.
Meanwhile, I have had a few harsh things to say about the Commission's Report, but I will repeat once again that I should not like them to think I am not appreciative of the work which has been done. This is the first serious look at this problem for a very long time, if not the first ever. The Commission had an almost impossible job to do, and on the whole they have done it with immense care, attention and conscientiousness, and with very interesting results. We are extremely grateful to them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.12 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, it is the normal practice in your Lordships' House to thank a noble Lord for having ventilated an issue, and of course I do that very gladly. But while I admire, as I always do, the skill with which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has presented his views, in a speech which was, if I may say so, highly selective in certain respects, I cannot also admire his sense of timing. I say that partly because of the urgency and the magnitude of the problems to which we should be directing our attention to-day; partly, too, because, within a few weeks of publication, the Liberal Party, in the certain belief that it will not be charged with the responsibility of forming a Government, is seeking to elicit from Her Majesty's Government, and the Opposition, their views on a complex problem which does not permit of swift or simple solution. The noble Lord himself admitted that this afternoon's debate was a political exercise on the part of the Liberal Party.
Clearly, the debate on the Kilbrandon Report must now begin, bu it will have to be spread over a period. I certainly do not intend to-day to press the noble and learned Viscount to disclose to your Lordships' House what will no doubt appear in due course as a Green Paper affording a basis for the many discussions and consultations which will be needed. Speaking for myself—and I assure your Lordships that there is no official Labour Party line on this matter —I would advise the Government to move slowly. A Constitution which has evolved over the centuries; which has given us a political stability in this country never achieved in France or Germany, or indeed in many parts of the Continent; which, symbolised by the Queen in Parliament, is the envy of most Western countries (and not least at the moment the United States), is not susceptible to instant reform. To most of us who were brought up on de Tocqueville, Dicey and Burke it might seem almost disastrous to expedite unduly the evolutionary process which has made Parliament the self-reforming Assembly that it has been for the last century and a half. The relationship between the two Houses, so different and yet so similar, as this noble
1166
House and another place; the protection of the birthright of those nations who join with us in the United Kingdom; the delicate relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary; the safeguarding of the rule of law—all these are too precious to be jeopardised by precipitate action calculated to win votes rather than to conserve or extend rights.
At the same time, my Lords, it would be churlish in the extreme not to express our appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his colleagues for the effort they put into the production of this Report. The fact that I have never before known so convoluted a Report, a Report so full of qualifications, so prolific in its acceptances and disagreements, so idiosyncratic in the many divergent conclusions it reaches, does not in any way detract from the gratitude we all feel. Our gratitude goes, too, and with far fewer reservations, to my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock for having produced a Memorandum of Dissent, which is elegantly phrased, clearly argued and workmanlike in its analysis. I found the first half of Appendix D of special interest, although confess I began to part company with my noble friend when the Appendix went on to discuss the reform of your Lordships' House. But, broadly, the Memorandum of Dissent is more attractive than the main Report and has, I submit, the great advantage that, unlike the latter, it obviously sets out really to evaluate the evidence the Commission received, and to base its conclusions on that evaluation. In the case of the main Report, one becomes a little tired of its preoccupation with the rehearsal of those discontents it believes to exist but for which no compelling factual justification is forthcoming.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Scots and the Welsh, not to mention the Northern Irish—and we welcome the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, in our midst to-day—have grievances that are numerous and very real. But I wonder whether they are more real or more numerous than in the case of the English. Is maladministration inside the Health Service, for example, worse and more prevalent in Dundee than in Dymchurch or Derby? And are Central Government officials more prone to Bumbledom in Harlech than in Harwich or Hull? Do the citizens of Newport complain

1167
about the inadequacy of retirement pensions more bitterly and more vociferously than those of the more remote St. Ives? Remembering the efforts made by every post-war Government to improve the lot of those on the perimeter of these islands, one wonders whether the Royal Commission are right in appearing to accept so readily the discontents, to which they so frequently refer, as stemming from the causes to which nationalists would attribute them. May it not be that a certain disenchantment with political Parties is widespread? Could that disenchantment spring from ill-considered remarks dropped in Election campaigns about lowering the cost of living at a stroke or providing cheap mortgages? Lonrho and Centre Point, moreover, evoke the same cynicism in Clapham as they do in Caithness and Carmarthen. And does not direct action, with its emphasis on the spectacular rather than the logical, with its greater attraction to the media than quiet constructive thinking and remedial measures, also tend to get current discontents out of perspective?
On calm reflection, these seem more plausible explanations than any sudden realisation of what is, after all, the long-established fact that Edinburgh is 400 miles from London, and that there has been substantial administrative devolution since the days of militancy on the Clyde in the first World War, or the unrest in the coalfields and shipyards in the 'twenties and 'thirties, or, the longstanding bitterness of many against the sterilisation of land for sporting purposes. Certainly, I look back with admiration and with great respect on the tenacity with which, in the last Government, Mr. Ross, my noble friend Lord Hughes and Mr. George Thomas always ensured that the interests of Scotland and Wales were not overlooked in Cabinet, or on Cabinet Committees.
I wonder whether some members of the Royal Commission are wise in arguing at this stage for yet another tier of Government? We are engaged at the present time, my Lords, on the most radical reform of local government for nearly a century. In England alone approximately 1,200 local authorities will be slashed by 75 per cent. Their functions are being substantially changed. Scotland and Wales are undergoing a similar revolution.
1168
Is it really the time to be seeking to introduce another tier between the county council and Westminster? My Lords, just consider—it would mean that our fellow-citizens (who do not suffer from our own disability as Peers of the Realm in Parliamentary elections) would find themselves voting for a local council, a district council, a county council, a regional or provincial assembly, Westminster, and possibly the European Parliament—six rounds of elections. We should be within reach of the absurdity which characterises the American way of Government and which often results in a poll so low as to be a reflection on democracy.
Speaking for myself, I am quite confident that to subject our own peoples to so complicated and demanding an electoral system would do nothing to reverse the growing apathy which has been reflected at every General Election in the last 25 years and which is chronic, but not I hope endemic, in local government. On the contrary, I believe it could well intensify the "we/they" attitude which is now so prevalent. I have a feeling in my bones that we should perhaps wait until we have had some experience of the working of the new system of local government before we form too positive a judgment on the extent, and to what bodies, any further devolution of administration is necessary, and how best the Welsh, for example, can exert more influence over the application of policy in their own country. I think perhaps I should tell your Lordships that the Welsh Parliamentary group of the Labour Party emphasises the extent to which it believes in and attaches importance to administrative devolution.
At the same time, my Lords, I do not wish it to seem from this statement of my personal views that I am complacent. The noble Lord referred to the European Economic Community. Some of your Lordships may recall that I was one of the small minority in your Lordships' House in our debates on the Common Market who warned about the extent on which membership of the Community would erode the powers of the British Parliament. At the weekend I studied the Demand Form for E.E.C. Printed Papers and I found that there were 25 Official Journals, 2 European Parliamentary Documents, 30 European

1169
Parliament Working Documents, 13 E.E.C. Draft Instruments, 1 European Parliament Selected Document, 2 Consultative Documents and 14 Explanatory Statements on Draft Instruments—that is a total of 87 publications which were offered to us for our consideration. It is difficult to see how we can add yet another tier to our responsibilities when they have been extended in the way that they have by our entry into the European Community.
It is my view that, as well as the distance between Land's End and John o'Groats, it is the remoteness from the working of Government which makes our people, whether they are Welsh, Scots or English, feel that they are losing control over their own destiny. And that feeling of impotence, my Lords, is compounded by a realisation of how much has been taken from the local councils in the past quarter of a century, since I was a borough councillor shortly after the end of the war, and how much is being taken away to-day in the course of reorganising water and the health service. The real but wholly unnecessary "we/they" antithesis stems from the transfer of power away from democratically elected bodies to appointed ad hoc bodies of a non-representative character at least as much as it does from distance from Westminster.
My Lords, I think that most of us will endorse warmly the Royal Commission's rejection of both separatism and federalism, but I hope that nothing that I have said will suggest that I have anything but sympathy with the Scots, the Welsh, or indeed the English, in seeking to improve their influence over decision-making and the implementation of decisions when they have been taken. It is a sphere in which many of us experience the same sense of frustration, whatever our ethnic background; the closer involvement of our people in government, the creation of machinery for the more rapid alleviation of grievances, are tasks of prime importance and they should not be left to await the reform of the Constitution. They are susceptible of administrative solutions—indeed swift solution if the political will is there—and we cannot set out to change our Constitution overnight.
The changes, if any, which need to be made to our Constitution will need
1170
long and anxious thought at all levels and in all parts of the United Kingdom. Rejecting the Liberal Party's unique combination of consumer research and pyramid selling as a substitute for political policy, we in the Labour Party have already embarked on the process of discussion and consultation. I detected a certain note of smugness in the attribution of virtue to the Liberal Party by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It is well known that the Conservative Party has considered this issue over a long period, and I think equally well known that we on these Benches also attach the same importance to it and have given it the same care and consideration over the last 15 or 20 years.
I have no doubt, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Government, in spite of their preoccupation with our present disasters, have not abandoned their interest in this matter and we on these Benches will welcome a return to this subject when we have all had time to give the Report more detailed consideration and when public opinion is beginning to take shape.
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I intervene at this stage, with what is I trust (and I am sorry to say that this is unusual this week) a certain personal brevity, because I think it would be as well if the House were to have word from the Government early in the debate, and possibly I shall be able, with the leave of the House, to say another word later. Certainly the first thing I should like to do is to commend the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving this House the first opportunity to debate the Report of the Royal Commission—indeed, one could hardly have taken an earlier opportunity, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has indicated.
The Royal Commission have produced a work not only of prodigious size but also of very great value and importance—and no less important, I think, in its lack of unanimity. Its depth and its quality are compensations which more than make up for lack of unanimity, because had there been the highest degree of unanimity in the Commission I doubt whether that could possibly have been

1171
sustained throughout the whole of the population of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, our thanks are very much due to the members of the Commission—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the way in which they have stuck to their task and have presented to us so worthwhile a document. It is a particular pleasure to note, on behalf of the Government, the part played, as is so often the case, by three present Members of this House, and, of course, a fourth, the late Lord Crowther, to whom reference has already been made. The three present Members are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, who is to follow me in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who, sadly, is an absentee from his place to-day, and the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, whom we look forward to hearing a little later.
I have listened with great interest to what has been said so far and I shall continue to do so. We have as it were, at any rate in the first two thirds of the debate, what appears to me to be like a very remarkable Liberal Danish sandwich, which is entirely in line with the Liberals' views upon the role of this country in Europe, founded, as we have just heard, as it seems to me, upon a good wheaten wholemeal slice of English Fenland bread from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. In a little while we shall have some very new leaven from Wales, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the whole sandwich will be topped by a delectable slice of oatcake from Caithness when the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, comes to speak. The intermediate fillings are of enormous quality except for, I suppose, myself, coming in the middle of the bottom layer. We shall listen with great interest to what will be said from Northern Ireland, from Scotland and from other parts of the country.
It is of course a great pity that a fourth member of the Royal Commission cannot take part in the deliberations of this House this afternoon. We must all regret bitterly the death of the original Chairman, Lord Crowther, who, with his acute intelligence, intellect and his great breadth of knowledge and understanding, made an outstanding personal contribution to the work of this Royal Commis-
1172
sion. I think his colleagues must most sadly have felt his absence when he so unfortunately died. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, took his place we were equally thankful and grateful, although I can imagine some of the alarms which no doubt tilled him when he had to take over that position. For his outstanding sense of public duty, and the skill and patience with which he husbanded the work of the Royal Commission through to its conclusion, he is owed a great debt of gratitude by all of us here, and I think by a wider public outside this House.
Noble Lords in all parts of the House—other than, I think, the Liberals, although even the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, went so far as to touch upon this—will agree that the Royal Commission were really given an almost impossible task to perform—I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head. The impossibility is apparent to all the rest of us; it appears that the solution is clear only to the Liberals. But if one looks at our Constitution it is not, after all, unlike many others, a clear-cut entity. There is no clearly defined framework—there was none and there is none now—for the Royal Commission to examine. There has never been previously a Royal Commission on this subject, so there were no guidelines to follow; and, secondly, the Royal Commission were required to investigate in an impartial way a field which is essentially political. That is a paradox which it is not easy to resolve. In a matter such as devolution which is that upon which the argument has turned, it is obviously difficult to separate the technical arguments from the more general considerations which depend on day-to-day politics, the popular will and indeed upon further devolution, which takes place all the time.
Again, in terms of difficulties with which they were faced, the Royal Commission have terms of reference of great width and diversity. There were extensive ramifications affecting not only the relationships of the central institutions of Government in Scotland, Wales and England, but also their relationships with Northern Ireland; and certainly I do not forget the relationships with what are, in essence, independent Governments under the Crown in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. They have a special

1173
chapter to themselves. The total volume of work was sufficient for several Royal Commissions. Indeed the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont, said that the Report alone—which did not I think pretend to cover the complete field as it might have done, had it wished to do so—together with the evidence and the research papers is worth several debates. This total volume was a very substantial undertaking indeed, yet all the subjects in its ambit are in a sense—and some more closely than others—inter-related to the extent that they cannot be readily separated.
Finally, the Commission were required to have regard to a continually changing situation, and many changes took place during the period when they were sitting. Because of this, they were forced to retrace their steps and to go over matters already settled in discussion not once but many times. They set out some of these difficulties in the Report, and I do not think we should either ignore or underestimate them. Perhaps this is another reason why snap decisions are not entirely the most felicitous results of their works.
I really intervene at this stage to underline the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. We have had this Report before us for something in the region of six weeks, if that. It is an early stage of the discussion and I am not prepared to make, nor am I prepared even to hint at, any definitive statement on behalf of the Government. This Government have made no secret of their interest in devolution. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already indicated, in the Statements that he has made about this Report of the Royal Commission, that it is the intention of the Government to formulate proposals and to put them forward in the lifetime of the present Parliament. So when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, says in somewhat scathing tones, "What are the Government going to do about it, and when?" and he provides the answers rhetorically for himself— "Nothing and never", let us take account of what one previous politician said: let us wait and see.
Let us also take account of what my right honourable friend has said. I think
1174
it would be totally irresponsible for us at this stage to lay down a line of what we wish to do, certainly in advance of wide discussions, because one thing that must be plain is that on a matter of this sort there should be wide, active public debate. I have stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of issues since I joined the team from the Home Office. I have talked about firearms; I have talked about the Law Revision Committee; I have talked about pornography; I have talked about countless subjects—indeed I cannot even remember how many there have been. What I have said is that the Government welcome the informed and considered opinion of people who are prepared to go with intelligence into these difficult questions. This is no exception. Here we have perhaps the most difficult of them all, and certainly after six weeks I am not going to try to rush anything through this House. We think there is much to be discussed in theory and indeed in practice, because even if one sorts out the theory there are many practical problems to be considered.
Bearing in mind what I have said about the fact, as it is, that this subject has never been previously referred to a Royal Commission—and if one turns to paragraph 44 of the Royal Commission's Report one discovers that they discussed the evolution of this problem back to the period before the establishment of Roman rule in Britain, which, according to my somewhat insignificant knowledge of history, was some 2,000 years ago—and we are supposed to make up our minds in these weeks, then I think that this is asking a bit much. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has taken the opportunity to restate yet again the view of the Liberal Party which they have always maintained, and which, as I understand it, they put forward in evidence to the Commission. There were other parties who are present on the British political scene who put forward their views to the Royal Commission, and no doubt they would stick to them to this day; but is it really responsible for any great political Party to stick manfully to the evidence they gave before they saw the result of the Royal Commission, and then say that this is the only solution? I am afraid that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont

1175
of Whitley, has done to-day. It is not the view of the Opposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale; it is not the view that I would suggest to the House to-day. Rather than that, the Government, and I believe also the Opposition, would prefer to formulate their own proposals. They are probably not going to be the same, but let us do them with circumspection and thought in the light of the maximum comment and advice on all these matters from as wide a public as we can get. What I can say about the debate this afternoon is that it is certainly not premature but is the first opportunity anyone has had to discuss this subject in public.
My Lords, I anticipate powerful contributions from noble Lords who are intensely involved in constitutional matters, not only those on the Royal Commission but others who have had a great deal to do with affairs of State in one way or another in various parts of the United Kingdom. We shall listen with enormous interest to what they have to say, hoping that at the same time they will not be too partipris in the process. In addition to listening to noble Lords fortunate enough to be able to take part in the debate in this House this afternoon, we should also like to listen to the views of the rest of the population of the United Kingdom. If they would tell us, preferably in writing, what it is they would like us to do about this Royal Commission—this is part of a genuine consultative process and one that is working very well on other matters that we have in hand under the same sort of machinery—we should be very pleased, and I hope we shall have many comments from many sources over a period of time. We will attempt to process them, and in time to come—I do not know how long it will take—maybe we shall come forward with a rather more positive statement. But to-day, I must say simply that I will listen with interest and fascination to what is said, as I have done already to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and to the reiteration of the Liberal point of view put by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned for the purpose of delivering a Message from the Queen.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: STATE OF EMERGENCY
3.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to deliver a Message regarding the declaration of a State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and Her Majesty having on the thirteenth day of November, 1973, made, in pursuance thereof, a Proclamation declaring that the industrial disputes affecting persons employed in the coal mines and in the electricity supply industry did, in Her opinion, constitute a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, which Proclamation does not remain in force for more than one month: and the continuance of the said industrial disputes, the present industrial dispute affecting persons employed on the railways and the reduction in oil supplies reaching Great Britain having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted such a state of emergency as aforesaid:
"Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the twelfth day of December 1973 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists."

STATE OF EMERGENCY
3.44 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Home Secretary is making a Statement in another place. With your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat it.
"Under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act 1920 the Proclamation made on November 13 will expire at midnight to-night together with the Regulations made in pursuance of that Proclamation.
"In view of the fact that there has been no resolution of the disputes affecting the coal and electricity supply industries, that there is continuing uncertainty in the supply of oil and that there is now an additional serious threat to the essentials of life of the community as a result of the dispute affecting the railways, the Government consider that it is necessary that a further Proclamation and further Regulations should now be made.
"With the addition of the transitional provision of Regulation 41, the Regulations are in the same form as those laid before Parliament on November 13 and will come into force at midnight to-night.
"The House will recall that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 enables my right honourable friend to introduce most of the measures necessary to reduce the consumption of energy in its various forms. I apologise to the House that it has not yet been possible to amend the standard set of Emergency Regulations, so as to eliminate the overlap between the Regulations and that Act. Nevertheless my right honourable friend does not propose to make new use of the powers in the Emergency Regulations where the powers under the 1973 Act are adequate.
"My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will announce to-morrow the arrangements for debating the Motions on the Address and on the Regulations.
"As always, use of the emergency powers will be limited to measures necessary in the public interest."
My Lords, that concludes the Home Secretary's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give us some indication as to when we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter. We did greatly facilitate the progress in this House, as we usually do, of the Emergency Regulations, but I think the time is coming when some of us will wish to probe how far the Government themselves have contributed to the seriousness of the present situation.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that Statement, we all deeply regret the disputes which have arisen and are continuing. It is our hope that such disputes may be settled quickly. May we assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that we on these Benches will do our utmost to facilitate action towards the settlement of these disputes, and we note that the emergency powers to which he has referred will be used only, as always, when they are necessary in the public interest.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those words which I believe should be in all our minds: that these powers are used very sparingly indeed. The Proclamation which has been made to-day continues the State of Emergency which has applied for the last four weeks. It did not seem right to the Government in the present circumstances that these powers should be relinquished, and I believe that all of your Lordships will agree with that. I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, that, subject to discussions with the usual channels, it is proposed to debate the Motion on the Address and on the Regulations next 'Tuesday, December 18.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is the sixth State of Emergency that has been brought in since this Government came into power? It is unparalleled in British political history for a Government to do this six times in the life of one Parliament. Does he not think that it all arises from the pernicious Industrial Relations Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that, he is oversimplifying what is a very complicated

1179
and difficult situation. This is a continuation of the State of Emergency which has existed for four weeks.
LORD ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have renewed the emergency powers and I am glad that we are going to debate the subject next week. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that a very large number of people in this country think that we are now facing the most serious economic situation that we have faced since, in my view, 1947, with an extreme probability of very serious unemployment and disruption of production and the balance-ofpayments situation. I think that when we debate this it would be of enormous help if the Government could tell the country, which I think they have not yet done, how serious the situation might well be.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is no inclination on behalf of the Government to underestimate the seriousness of the situation. There will be opportunities in both Houses to debate both the situation and the economic aspects on which the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, speaks with such authority. I certainly take to heart the message he has given to-day.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind, when we come to have this debate, that it should not be on purely Party political lines? I think that the nation would expect this House to reflect the seriousness of all those who are dedicated to democracy in solving this problem. I wonder whether the moment is not arriving when discussions should be initiated across the Floor in this House and in another place to consider what measures are necessary to restore democratic rule within the trade union movement. It cannot be in the interests of the nation that a small minority dedicated to the destruction of democracy in the trade union movement, and ultimately in Parliament as well, should be able to dominate the great majority. There must be an opportunity at some time when the great majority should be allowed to stand up and be counted.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is his wish that the House
1180
should order that there be a debate? The Opposition are behaving with very great restraint. There are a lot of points we should like to put to the Government. If the supporters of the noble Lord choose to make suggestions of that kind, I think that we ought to consider debating it here and now, but I hope that we shall do it at the proper time; namely, next Tuesday.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, may I ask how the Government propose to maintain order if communications break down?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I have said there will be an opportunity to debate this matter next week; our normal practice is to have a debate on the Address and on the Regulations themselves. There will also be a debate in another place in which my right honourable friends who have responsibilities in the economic and energy fields will be taking part. When we have the debate I am sure that it will be the interests of the country, rather than any particular political Party or any organised group, which we shall keep firmly in the front of our minds.

THE CONSTITUTION: ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT
3.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD KILBRANDON: My Lords, I would ask leave to make a preliminary observation. This is the first time that I have ventured to address your Lordships' House, except in my Judicial capacity, and I have no doubt that in the course of what I have to say I shall exhibit some ignorance of proper form and order. If so, I ask the indulgence of the House.
It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said, with a feeling of sadness that one addresses the House on this occasion. For some two years the Royal Commission sat under the chairmanship, the highly experienced guidance and the firm leadership of Lord Crowther. To a large extent the shape which the Report ultimately took, as well as the principles inspiring our discussions, were influenced by his advice, which was gladly followed by his colleagues. When

1181
I succeeded him as Chairman, almost two years ago, the framework was there to be built on. His death deprived the nation of a wise counsellor and many of us of a good friend.
The difficulty of proving a worthy successor was not the only problem which arose from my appointment. Membership of the Commission was one thing, but for a judge to act as Chairman was in the circumstances a very delicate matter. For we all recognised, right at the start of our meetings, that what we had to examine was questions of constitutional policy, and that is just another way of saying political questions. It is, I am quite sure, possible to distinguish between politics in the wide sense, in which every sane person must take an interest, and politics in the Party sense, in which participation is denied to Her Majesty's judges. If I had not believed in the existence of that distinction, I would have accepted neither membership nor chairmanship. But the inescapable tract remains that unless the greatest care is taken the broader issue could become merged in the narrower, and this I am naturally most anxious to avoid.
The essentially political nature of our subject matter really supplies the explanation for the fact, which apparently surprised some people, that the members did not come to a unanimous conclusion. In any discussion in which the exercise of political judgment is involved unanimity is impossible, unless the body concerned has been selected with ultimate unanimity in view. To have done anything like that would have been to destroy in advance the credibility of the Commission. Accordingly, speaking from these Benches, I want to make it plain, if I can, that I am not here to defend any positions or to advocate any solutions. I have, it is quite true, set my name in the course of the Report to certain preferred conclusions, but there I shall leave it. I could have done no less, and I believe that it would be wrong now to do more. But I also believe that it might be helpful if I were to give some account of the thinking, at least of the majority, behind the method of handling the subject and behind the scope of the solutions which were eventually recommended. In the short time at my disposal I must try to concentrate to some extent on the proposals for legislative
1182
devolution; that is, the setting up of subordinate elective legislative assemblies for Scotland and Wales. I mean no disrespect by saying as little as I do about the solutions suggested for England. I believe that popular interest, and certainly my own qualifications, point that course out to me.
One omission from our Report has been noted; that is, a substantial treatment of what I will call the human rights side of constitutional law. I believe there is good reason for that. The rights of freedom, whether of the person, of speech or of property, as everywhere understood, are guaranteed, and limited only, in our country, by the rule of law. There was not shown to us the need for an overriding authority superior to Parliament or to the existing courts of justice whereby such rights could be established and protected. Amendment, if called for, to the rules of law presents no difficulty. The same is true of extension to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. You do not need a Commission on the Constitution for that. So we rather concentrated on other things. Another notable and equally deliberate omission is recommendations for a permanent constitutional solution for Northern Ireland. We were convinced of what the last few days has proved, that such a solution could be hammered out only in tri-partite consultation, on a level very different from that of a Royal Commission. The present proposals are supported by the hopes and prayers of the whole world. Having said that, I should perhaps explain why the history of Northern Ireland since 1920 is so often referred to in the Report, and I would also suggest that the ultimate solution for that Province is likely to be of a unique character and not capable of transplantation to other regions of Great Britain.
My Lords, it was quite plain to the majority of us, not only from a consideration of our terms of reference and from the political background of our appointment, but also from the opinions frequently expressed by the Press and public, especially in Scotland and Wales, that we would be expected to examine above all other topics the question of self-government in some degree for those countries, whether by way of separatism, federalism or some other constitutional

1183
device. The same problem had to be faced in 1920. I will not weary your Lordships by recalling what is familiar —how the Government of Ireland Act never took effect as it had been intended to do. But there was Stormont for all to see. A devolved Legislature had been set up, and had operated for half a century, as an ingenious compromise between systems—not federal, because not sovereign in its devolved functions, as was in the end to be tragically demonstrated, yet not truly subordinate inasmuch as by constitutional convention Westminster refrained from exercising its supreme power in those respects, and did so only under the pressure of civil war.
We had to look for evidence to see how, administratively, it had worked. Rather, I think, to the surprise of some of us we were given an enthusiastic account. The advantages of having an Assembly with legislative powers, on a small scale, manned by representatives to whom the whole Province was perfectly familiar, capable of fast legislative action, even though one must say designed after rather an old-fashioned pattern—these were explained to us, not least by the business community. And there is no doubt that, somehow, Stormont was able to make attractive to outside investors the commercial development of the Province, at that time sorely in need of it, to an extent which exceeded what was done in other regions.
The events of the past four years, and their causes, are too familiar to call for description. But we were satisfied that they were unconnected with the form of Government as such. If it be true that that form of Government could not relieve the inherent racial and religious tensions, it is also pretty certain that no other could have done so either. The conclusion I wish to draw from that is this. If it were to be suggested that the events in Northern Ireland have shown that similar devolution might lead to similar results in Scotland or in Wales, the response in those countries to the suggestion would be derision or resentment, or both. The proposals of the majority for the regions of England may be criticised as inadequate, but I think it would be wrong to take that view merely on the ground that they differ
1184
greatly in degree from the preferred solutions for Scotland and Wales. I think it would be fallacious to adopt an approach, which I would almost call doctrinaire, that England must have what is thought good for Scotland, or that Wales must not have what is thought good for her because it is rejected for England.
There are two short passages in the evidence which seems to me to be relevant to the majority proposals. The East Midlands Economic Planning Council said:
"There is a strong case for a strong well-informed provincial body to advise both local and central Government. There would however be no advantage, and considerable disadvantage, in creating another tier of local government, with executive powers, at provincial level."
And, speaking of such a body, the Joint Committee of Local Planning Authorities for the South-West said:
"This new organisation should not have executive powers but should be purely advisory, although there might be a few matters such as tourism, the distribution of Industrial Development Certificates, and perhaps regional water and sewerage duties where executive powers would have to be given."
This leads me to say a word about local government, to which several noble Lords have already referred. In a sense, my Lords, I am a child of local government. My father was County Clerk of Ayrshire; and so was his father. My grandfather's father and grandfather were Clerks to the Commissioners of Supply, the lineal ascendants of the County Council. So I have tended to attribute the autocratic attitude of my father to the principal officers of the great English authorities. No more than him can I see them, when wishing to discuss some aspect of Government policy, being content to interview some provincial functionary in a regional headquarters, having been refused direct access to the corridors of real power in Whitehall.
So, again, it has been suggested that the recent reforms in Scottish local government might be stultified by the setting up of a Scottish Legislature, about one-half of the country having been already committed to the jurisdiction of a single local authority. That could well be true, since it has been proposed that local government should be one of the functions of the devolved legislature, and the new

1185
arrangements have certainly been much criticised in Scotland. But the argument, to make sense, must proceed upon the hypothesis that a Scottish Assembly is desired and required. Is it then to be set aside on the ground of its being incompatible with a system of local government which was recently designed to work in conjunction with a United Kingdom Government at Westminster, not with a Scottish legislature in Edinburgh?
The scene changed quite quickly during the course of our necessarily long consultations. One development is the exploitation of North Sea Oil, which could influence the finance of separatism, although the other arguments for and against that system might be unaffected. It may be that this will have to be debated in future; the situation and prospects at the time we finished our deliberations were still obscure.
Then there is the entry of Britain into the E.E.C. This is a topic on which my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt—I believe on these Benches I am not allowed to have friends, but I worked with him for so long that he will forgive rue for referring to him as a friend—has views which differ from those of the majority, who were of opinion that whatever the consequences of E.E.C. regional policy may turn out to be, there is no necessary relevance in the existence or non-existence of regional legislatures having such powers and functions as the majority suggested were appropriate. It is not difficult to conjure up possible problems, but it is most unlikely that they are insoluble.
One branch of the Report I hope will be of special utility. That is the examination of the financial implications and possibilities connected with some kind of legislative devolution. I believe that this forms by far the most thorough and elaborate exercise yet to be undertaken and, in view of the width of the consultations upon which it is based, I believe that it can be regarded as unusually authoritative. The discussion of the potentialities of devolved and shared taxation is, I think, of special interest. The conclusion drawn is that such expedients need not be inimical to what members were unanimous in regarding as essential; that is, the economic unity of the United Kingdom. But it will, I suppose, always be the case that a universal stan
1186
dard of living will need to be supported by the wealth of those parts of the Kingdom whence the greater part of the taxes arise, because there lies the greater part of the national prosperity This is implicit in the concept of a United Kingdom—a concept which our terms of reference did not permit us to challenge, even if we had to do so, which emphatically we did not. For my own part, I have no doubt that if reforms are to be made they will be acceptable in proportion as they can be seen to be logically consistent with and practically continuous with systems which have, on any view, much to be said for them, and, under gradual development, have long survived.
May I quote some words spoken almost 100 years ago:
"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines."
These are words of Benjamin Disraeli, and in order to dispel any suspicion of partiality so far as I am concerned I may quote a sentence from the same page of the biography, where the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
"The Scotch shall have no favors from me until they return more Tory members to the House of Commons".
Absit omen, my Lords!
As I see it, we have here a political question, and a political question is in this country, happily, answered by finding out what is the will of the people. We point out in the Report how difficult it is to make that discovery. After saying that few people in the country even know what the possibilities are, we add, perhaps rather pathetically, "Neither did we until we began our work". Again, it appeared from the rather controversial Attitude Survey carried out for us that half the adult population of Scotland did not know what the Scottish Office was, and the other half had a very hazy idea of what work it did. But for my part I cannot blame them for that. I would rather criticise ourselves, who have failed to give the people the civic education they deserve.
This leads me to what is really the last thing I want to say. If our Report has informed people and put before them in

1187
an impartial way what are the possibilities, what is to be said for and against any expedient, and has supplied them with some of what they need to make up their minds, it will have served its main purpose. I am quite certain that in Scotland, at least, informed discussion is going on at this moment on a scale I do not remember in time past. Nothing but good can come from that.
4.12 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, it was with some trepidation that I found my name between that of Lord Kilbrandon, whose speech I agree with so much, and that of Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, both of whom of course know far more about this subject than many of us in this House. I have no carefully prepared speech, but this is a subject in which I have been interested for a long time and I should therefore like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for having given us the chance to have this discussion and debate in this House. I am only so sorry for him that events outside his control—apparently outside the control of us all—have made it likely, first, that the debate will not be reported as fully as it should be and, second, that the average person to-day, in London anyway, will be wondering whether or not his train is running to Woking. This, I think, is tragic, because this is a most important matter. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having given us this opportunity.
I think it was about 25 years ago that in some very obscure village in County Antrim I advocated a Parliament for Scotland, and saw the following day a little headline in the local paper which read:
"O'Neill for Scottish Nationalists."
This I think shows, my Lords, how difficult it is to discuss this matter without strong emotions being aroused, and I therefore hope that if I say something which is particularly well supported either by the Labour Party or by the Conservative Party they will bear with me, because I have given this matter some consideration over many years. It is my view that devolution for Scotland and Wales does not in fact suit either of the major Parties, for apparently very good reasons. First of all, I think it is
1188
genuinely conceded that if the Parliament at Westminster represented only England it would probably have a permanent Conservative majority. It is because of the Members of Parliament coming from Scotland and Wales that it is possible for the Labour Party to form a Government. Secondly, if Parliaments—I am using this old-fashioned word " Parliament "; I know I should be using the expression "legislative assemblies"—were set up in Scotland and Wales, the Conservatives living in Scotland and Wales would have to live under permanent Labour Governments. Therefore, you have an alliance for apparently excellent reasons.
I would suggest—and, after all, this has been introduced into my own part of the United Kingdom, into Northern Ireland—that if proportional representation was introduced for these local Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, then the likelihood of fifty years of one-Party domination, as we have had in Northern Ireland, would be very much lessened. Furthermore—and I think this is probably almost more important—if you reduce the number of representatives coming to Westminster from Scotland and Wales because new Assemblies have been set up in Scotland and Wales, then you are bound to meet with Labour resistance. I think it would be quite a good idea. Speaking from memory, I think the suggestion was that in Wales the representation should be reduced by six. I should have thought it was a price well worth paying to maintain that representation where it is now, so that the Labour Party would not feel that they were going to lose support from Wales and Scotland in what we in Northern Ireland, in a very old-fashioned way, call the Imperial Parliament here at Westminster. But this, to my mind, is the crux of the matter: that you have this feeling in both the major Parties that they will both suffer if the present system is altered.
It is said that there is no reason for us to change the system under which we are governed in the United Kingdom and which has existed for a great number of years. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there are only approximately 12 million people in Australia, and yet there are 6 State Parliaments in Australia; that there are only

1189
about 20 million people in Canada, and yet there are some 10 or 11 Provincial Parliaments in Canada. I am not going to talk about the United States. I think most noble Lords know that it is not a unitary Government in Washington, although many people in this country believe it to be governed solely from Washington. The federal system is an established fact all over the world. It will be argued, of course, that this is such a small country that there is no need to take these matters into consideration. But might I here suggest that to-day it is just as easy to fly from one part of America to another, and takes no longer, as it is to travel by train from Edinburgh to London. So in fact that old-fashioned idea that only geographically large countries should have a federal system is, I think, to some extent altered by modem transport.
I found myself very much in agreement with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, not only in what he said about Northern Ireland and the conclusions we should draw from the unhappy history of that country, but also in his remarks on almost everything else. I intended to mention and I still intend to, despite the fact that he covered this point, that we must remember that Aberdeen is becoming the Texas of Great Britain. We must remember that Scotland may well become a much more wealthy part of the United Kingdom than she is to-day. An interjection was made earlier from these Benches, "But who is going to pay for all this? It is all going to be paid for in England." Assuming as I do, that Scotland, when she has greater riches, will demand greater control over her own affairs, would it not be better, bearing in mind Irish history, to grasp this nettle now rather than to wait until the Scots demand it?
I suppose that I am biased in my view on this matter, but I think that separatism would be crazy even if Scotland were a richer country than England. This is a small area. As I see it we must stick together. Even though the Republic of Ireland has total independence and is outside the Commonwealth, it has not got economic independence from the United Kingdom and probably never will have. So—and once again I find myself in total agreement with the
1190
noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon—separatism would in my view be totally crazy. Nevertheless, I hope that in the not too distant future the Government will be able to give us their proposals for some form of devolution for Scotland and Wales.
My Lords, I think that it would be better to start with Scotland and Wales. If that succeeded, then areas in England could be devolved. But bearing in mind (and again I have a personal interest in this) the row we had with the Government about whether Lymington should be in Hampshire or Dorset, I think that quite good arguments could be put forward about the exact area of an English legislative assembly. Let us start with Scotland and Wales, and if that turns out to be successful further consideration could be given to England. I apologise for not having a prepared speech but I wished to make a few points largely in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, agree that improvements in transport would tend to outdate federal government rather than unitary government?
4.23 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I presume to join in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his colleagues for having, after four and a half years of strenuous effort, and after having been set up, as I understand, somewhat urgently by a Labour Government, produced a Report of major interest and usefulness for the political, economic and social progress of the United Kingdom. Particularly I congratulate the noble Lord on, as I suggest, the clear recommendation in the Majority Report for a directly elected Assembly in Wales, with specific power to deal with a wide range of matters domestic to Wales. I shall confine my speech to the aspects of the Report dealing with Wales, and I hope that, in as objective a manner as possible, I shall justify my statement that the major Report justifies the early establishment of a direct Assembly for Wales.
I presume to offer these congratulations not only in a personal capacity: I declare at once my interest as President of the Welsh Liberal Party. But all my

1191
colleagues on these Benches have welcomed the recognition which the Kilbrandon Commission has given to so much of the evidence submitted to the Commission in the days when the late Lord Crowther was presiding, and we deeply regret his untimely death. May I add my personal congratulations to Mr. Guppy, Secretary to the Commission, and his colleagues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, has referred with admiration to the work of Mr. Guppy. I add my congratulations in a spirit of nostalgic sympathy and understanding, because for seven years I was Secretary to a Royal Commission. Unlike Mr. Guppy, I was not a full-time Secretary; I was part-time Secretary (and at the same time practising at the Patent Bar) to the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors which was set up under the chairmanship of the late Lord Cohen. I should like to record that I had the privilege, after having worked with him for seven years, of becoming a personal friend of Lord Cohen as a result of that association on the Commission.
My Lords, it is inevitable that Commissions should be concerned with the scope of their terms of reference. It is a perennial question and it turned up at the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors. I was always amazed how Lord Cohen was able to correlate the divergent views of so many industrialists and experts on the Commission and always to produce a unanimous Report. It would seem, my Lords, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, also had frequent discussions about the scope of his terms of reference. It is quite clear that there were a number of discussions as to the meaning of the word "devolution". It is a word which does not appear in the somewhat curiously worded terms of reference of the Commission; and at least nine members of the Commission who signed the main Report accepted, as is stated in paragraph 13, that this Commission was primarily appointed for the purpose of examining the possibility of transfer of power to a level of government away from Westminster, inter alia to Wales, so as to remove causes of discontent.
As I have indicated, I shall be dealing with those parts of the Commission's Report which referred to Wales, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I read
1192
a few passages from the Report which, in my submission, clearly establish three points. They establish and recognise the special position of Wales in the United Kingdom Constitution. Secondly, the present discontent in Wales is recognised and, thirdly, the Report recommends that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole that a directly-elected Assembly should be set up for Wales with specific powers to deal with some domestic Welsh matters. May I refer to paragraph 130 of the Report, where the special position of Wales is recognised:
"Generalisations about people are difficult to make and usually unsatisfactory, but it seems true that as one moves eastward and southward through Wales, the Welshness' of the people, though it undergoes subtle changes, persists. Despite division and gradations. there remain a strong sense of Welsh identity, a different way of looking at things and a distinct feeling that the needs and interests of people in Wales must be considered separately from those of people elsewhere in the United Kingdom."
May I remind your Lordships of what is said in paragraph 1122:
"Wales is a relatively small part of the United Kingdom, and its problems cannot be expected to figure disproportionately in the deliberations of a Parliament and government which have responsibilities for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. However sympathetic the administration may be, it cannot bring as much time, attention and understanding to the affairs of Wales as could the Welsh people themselves if the appropriate machinery existed. While, therefore, as in the case of Scotland, we differ on the functions it should exercise, we all see a need for a directly elected assembly which would have as its exclusive concern the welfare of Wales and be able to speak openly and authoritatively on matters of Welsh interest. Through such an assembly the aspirations and needs of the Welsh people would be fully discussed and formulated and made known to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. Wales would be given the assurance it needs that its problems were being examined in sufficient depth and with adequate understanding."
The reasons for recommending such a Welsh elected assembly are potently and persuasively set out in this Report. But the large majority of the Commission accept (I quote from paragraph 1121) that
"There is a deep anxiety"—
that is, in Wales—
"that the national identity and interests are subject to a continuous process of erosion. This is seen to be the result not of deliberate policies, but rather of a lack of policies or at least of policies which pay sufficient regard to particular Welsh needs."

1193
How realistic and true those words are to those of us who know something about the economy and industrial conditions in Wales. It is of course generally accepted that Parliamentary procedures fall short of what is needed for Wales. But Parliamentary remedies alone, in my submission, without some devolution of some specific powers to an elected Welsh assembly, would not suffice to remedy the serious defects that exist. Of course we accept that the undivided sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament should be maintained, and the need of Central Government, if these schemes for devolution for Wales were accepted, to influence the demand for expenditure as stated in paragraph 612 of the Report.
The Commission also felt, in paragraph 623, that it would not make definite and final recommendations about the taxation to be controlled by a Welsh assembly. But in paragraph 679 (and I think it is to this passage that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, was referring when he was referred to the "authoritative nature" of the parts of his Commission's Report on taxation) the Commission put forward a possible scheme to show that the matter could be dealt with, to quote the Commission's words, in a "practical and more down-to-earth way".
The Commission, in considering devolved legislation, states in paragraph 778 that it accepted as axiomatic that a body wielding the substantial powers recommended should be popularly elected. They go on then to consider the main questions which arise; namely, the method of election, the number of members of the assembly and the period for which they should be elected. These matters are dealt with in detail, and I shall not bother your Lordships with the details. Suffice it for me to say that the Report recommends in paragraph 788 that, so far as election is concerned, they favour the single transferable vote system; but they specifically point out that this conclusion is in no way concerned with election to the United Kingdom Parliament.
My Lords, the Commission also saw no difficulty about constituency boundaries for the elected assembly following the local authority boundaries so far as possible. However, I presume to differ from the Commission in their tentative suggestion that perhaps the number of Welsh Members of Parliament should be
1194
reduced from 36 to 31. I see no advantage in that kind of reduction. All these are matters of detail which do not seriously affect the basic conclusions of the Report; that there should be a directly elected assembly for Wales with specific powers.
I should like first of all to refer briefly, again in support of my objective approach to the justification for a Welsh elected assembly, to the positive recommendations in regard to Wales in Chapter 26, entitled, "Summary and Assessment of Conclusions on Devolution." Paragraph 1216 says:
"There are certain matters on which we are agreed."
Then in the middle of the paragraph it says:
"… that Scotland and Wales should each have a directly elected assembly or council…"
As if that were not a sufficiently clear indication, in the middle of the next paragraph the message goes out again. After considering various different views of different Commissioners in regard to the position of the United Kingdom as a whole, the Report says:
"None of this destroys the case for devolution. On the contrary, the unavoidable increase in central power makes it all the more necessary to enlarge democratic accountability and to increase opportunities for participation in government. Devolution can make a valuable contribution to these ends."
May I, in support of my objective case for the elected Assembly for Wales, refer briefly to the conclusions starting at page 469. There is first of all set out a summary of the serious dissatisfaction with Government in Great Britain and I shall not trouble your Lordships with those points. So far as Wales is concerned, with your Lordships' indulgence I should like to read four or five of these conclusions. I start with Conclusion 16:
"The centralisation of Government in London appears to be resented in Scotland and Wales more than in England, though Welsh people seem rather more prepared than the Scots to accept that the United Kingdom Government must play the dominant role."
Then in Conclusion 19:
"Though for many Welsh people the maintenance of United Kingdom standards may be rather more important than devolution, the Welsh, like the Scots, have prominently in mind the idea of self-determination."
Conclusion 22 reads:
"The concern for democracy in Wales shows itself not only in the widespread

1195
demand for an elected Welsh assembly, but also in the vigorous criticism of appointed bodies."
Separatism for Wales, in my view—and here I respectfully agree with the Kilbrandon Commission—is, rightly, rejected. May I ask your Lordships to look at Conclusion No. 173? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, finds my references to these Conclusions about an elected Assembly in Wales so amusing.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, may I interrupt to say that I was hoping to hear some of the views of the Liberal Party and not simply a repetition of the Kilbrandon Report?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for showing his interest in the address I am making; but may I assure your Lordships that all the matters I am reading from the Report coincide almost identically with the evidence given by the Welsh Liberal Party and the United Kingdom Liberal Party to the Kilbrandon Commission. I am merely reading the extracts from the Report in order to adopt them as part of the Liberal Party's programme in this matter, a programme which they have had for upwards of ten years at least, to my knowledge.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt? Since the noble Lord is reading so many extracts with which some of us are familiar, I wonder whether it is also consistent with his view that there is little demand for federalism in Scotland and Wales and that the Liberal Party in Wales in any case do not support the federalist solution advocated by his noble friend?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his observations. Of course I conform with the general policy of the Liberal Party in regard to federalism; but the policy of the Liberal Party also is devolution of powers to Wales. That is part of Liberal policy. I am here merely to ask your Lordships' indulgence, as a Welshman, to consider the circumstances in Wales objectively, and I apologise once again for reading
1196
so much from the Kilbrandon Report, because it is entirely along the lines of the Liberal Party policy in regard to Wales. May I assure noble Lords that I am coming to the end of my quotations from the Report and may I again ask your Lordships to read Paragraph 173? It seems to me essential, if Wales is to be considered in this House, that technical matters of this kind should be considered in detail. Paragraph 173 says:
"Our preferred schemes all provide for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies directly elected by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for a fixed term of four years."
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is that the paragraph on page 484 of Volume I of the Report?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: Yes, my Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is following my submissions so closely. Paragraph 175 sets out the matters which it is suggested by the Kilbrandon Commission should be transferred to the Assemblies there. I finish my quotations by a reference to Conclusion No. 182, at the bottom of page 485. It reads:
"The functions of the assembly should be built up gradually and the scheme should be generally flexible."
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but he must quote correctly. He said "should", when the word, in fact, is "would".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: And, my Lords, it was both the Assemblies, and not only the Welsh one.
LORD LLOYD or KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will welcome that support, and I apologise if I have misread one of the quotations. The passage reads:
"The functions of the assemblies would be built up gradually and the scheme would be generally flexible."
Flexibility in any Assembly which is given to Wales would be very important, and in our view—and again I apologise for having quoted so much of the Report —this Report clearly establishes, so far as Wales is concerned, that the proposals should be implemented. There is a substantial discontent in Wales with its present political and economic status. These discontents should be alleviated by the creation of an elected Assembly to

1197
which specific powers are devolved. The Commissioners make it clear that such a scheme could be readily put into practice. I know the dangers into which I have gone in quoting parts of a Report to your Lordships, but I hope you will accept that I have been fair in presenting to you the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Commission in its case for devolving Governmental powers to Wales.
Parliament has already had the opportunity of discussing two Bills for a domestic Parliament for Wales: first, in another place in a Bill presented by Mr. Emlyn Hooson, the Liberal Member for Montgomeryshire, in March, 1967; and again in this House in a Bill presented by my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, in November 1968. I hope that I have presented the Kilbrandon case for devolution of a domestic Parliament to Wales without too much Welsh hwyl for your Lordships and without that blend of romanticism, radicalism and culture which many Anglo-Saxons find very difficult to understand. May I say that Wales, for over a thousand years, has preserved its individuality and has made a contribution to life outside Wales, as well as within Wales, in a distinctive way. We know how much the wealth of the United Kingdom has depended in the past on the major industries in Wales. We know the scars which industrialisation has left in Wales and which can still be seen. In some places this is still deeply felt. I do not come here nursing grievances or imagined injustices; I come here to ask the Government on the basis of the Kilbrandon Report to have the political imagination and the political foresight to take active steps in the near future to grant devolution to Wales by means of an elected Welsh Assembly with specific powers.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, to address this House again so soon after the most kindly and friendly reception which your Lordships gave to my maiden speech only last week must seem to be an unnecessarily tempting of Providence and, indeed, of your Lordships, too. It is the more so since I can hardly expect to be impartial to-day, when my main mission is to commend to your Lordships' House and to Her Majesty's Ministers and to Her Majesty's Opposition as well the Constitutional Commis-
1198
sion's Minority Report produced by Professor Alan Peacock and myself. But if I cannot expect to be impartial to-day, nevertheless I shall do my best to tread the middle road between partiality and impartiality.
Before I seek to find that elusive middle ground, I should first like to pay my tribute to the Commission's Chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. He took over the chairmanship in the midst of our labours, after the untimely and tragic death of Lord Crowther, who was giving us such challenging and inspiring leadership—and who was just about getting us all under proper control. In these circumstances the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, was faced with an even more onerous and difficult task than most Chairmen of Royal Commissions have to assume. Nevertheless, his eminently skilful, fair and sympathetic chairman ship was a major factor in ensuring the maintenance of the most friendly and cooperative personal relationships between all members of the Commission, even after it was clear that Professor Peacock and I had to go our own separate ways. I am most grateful to him, my Lords, and I should like to pay this public tribute.
Now let me try to find that elusive middle ground. Perhaps the Reports of the Royal Commission on the Constitution can best be assessed in relation to each other if I explain why Professor Peacock and I felt that we had to produce our own separate Report. First, we believed that the majority of our colleagues were taking a narrow view of the Commission's terms of reference. They were looking, in our view, almost exclusively at the case for or against devolution—though the word "devolution", as has been stated this afternoon, was nowhere mentioned in the terms of reference—and certainly the Majority Report makes no specific recommendations on any question other than devolution. Professor Peacock and I believed that we should look at the system of government as a whole, as in our view our terms of reference required, and our recommendations accordingly cover more than the problem of devolution, important though it is.
Secondly—and this was the major factor in the parting of our ways—we were disturbed because the majority of

1199
our colleagues were making no assessment of the validity or otherwise of the complaints about our system of government which were being made to us. The Majority Report, in fact, summarises the various complaints made under such headings as "Centralisation" and "The Weakening of Democracy", But nowhere in that Report do our colleagues say which, if any, of the complaints are justified and which not. They conclude simply by saying—and here I quote from the Majority Report:
"While the people of Great Britain as a whole cannot be said to be seriously dissatisfied with their system of government, they have less attachment to it than in the past and there are some substantial causes of discontent which may contain the seeds of serious trouble."
But nowhere my Lords, do our colleagues specify those particular "seeds of discontent"; nor do they indicate, as I have said, which complaints are valid and which not. Professor Peacock and I felt that we had to seek to make such an assessment, and I will come to that point in a moment or two, if I may.
The third reason why Professor Peacock and I felt we could not go along with the rest of our colleagues was because we believed they were underestimating the impact of the Common Market on the working of our system of government. They say, on page 125, that our membership of the Common Market and I quote:
"… does not have any major specific consequences for the questions submitted to us."
Professor Peacock and I profoundly disagree with that line of analysis. We believe that our membership of the Common Market is already having a major impact on our whole system of government, and that it will have an even bigger impact as the Common Market develops and assumes new responsibilities. So in our Memorandum of Dissent we have devoted a whole chapter to seeking to assess what we see as the consequences now developing as a result of British membership of the Common Market—that is to say, the consequences it is having on our system of government —and what we need to do about them.
Finally, we could not agree with the main recommendation of the Majority Report. I say the "main recommendation" because of course there were a num-
1200
ber of recommendations in that Report: it is in fact nowhere united for a far-reaching scheme of legislative devolution to Scotland and Wales. I think it is important to consider how far-reaching this proposal for legislative devolution really is. It is akin to the old Stormont system of government, but without the financial controls and other factors which in practice did something to restrict Stormont's ability to make full use of the powers it possessed. Therefore the scheme of legislative devolution recommended by the majority would give to elected Scottish and Welsh Governments and Legislatures day-to-day sovereign powers of law-making on a wide-ranging list of subjects, including health, education, housing, environmental services and so on. In these fields, the Westminster Parliament would not be able to legislate for Scotland and Wales; and the extent of this devolution of sovereign legislative power can best be seen by giving three examples.
A Scottish Government and Parliament, under the scheme of legislative devolution recommended in the Majority Report, would be able to nationalise the grouse moors of Scotland with or without compensation—it would be easier to do it without compensation than with; but that they would have such a power is undoubted. A Scottish Government and Parliament would be able to abolish the National Health Service, to impose higher charges if they wished, or to abolish all charges completely. A Scottish Government and Parliament would be able to abolish the public schools in Scotland or to impose such fees as they wished on State schools. These are very wide-ranging powers indeed, and I have tried to provide these examples with at least a nice degree of political impartiality. Professor Peacock and I believe that there are four fatal flaws in this scheme of legislative devolution for Scotland and Wales which together make it unacceptable to people in all parts of the United Kingdom.
First of all, given the Common Market dimension, it seems to us impossible to move sovereignty downwards when in so many fields it is moving upwards to Brussels. Here perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that although, in our view, membership of the Common Market increases the case

1201
for devolving more power from the Central Government of the United Kingdom down to the different regions and nations of the United Kingdom, it is not possible to devolve legislative and sovereign power downwards. Certain functions can be devolved downwards, but not sovereign power, when sovereign power is actually moving upwards. If I may reply to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, he mentioned that we had said in the Memorandum of Dissent that legislative devolution would not reduce the burden on Parliament. It is true that we said that—but only if it were given to Scotland and Wales alone. To give legislative devolution to Scotland and Wales alone would reduce substantially the burden on this Parliament.
Thirdly, if I may make a further point to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, he commended in his speech the brilliant research paper written for the Commission by Mr. Nevil Johnson, and in doing so he said it proved that federalism was the "in thing" to-day. I think, with respect, that this is a misunderstanding of the conclusion which Mr. Johnson reached. The conclusion that he reached in that paper was, first of all, that federalism was not operating in Western Germany in the traditional manner any longer; broadly speaking, what was happening was that the Central Government in Bonn was making general policy even in areas in which the Lander were normally sovereign, but what the Länder were doing was administering within the Länder the general policies in all matters which were made in Bonn. If one were setting up the West Germany system of Government to-day, given membership of the Common Market, one would not set it up as a federal structure. Although federal structures have much to commend them, they will not operate as traditional federal structures in the Common Market.
Secondly, another objection to the scheme for legislative devolution is the simple fact that if recent voting matters are any guide, Scotland and Wales would be likely, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, said, to be Single Party States. In each country for the foreseeable future only one Party has any real chance of capturing political power. When all
1202
power goes to the victors in the Cabinet system of Government recommended in the scheme for legislative devolution, that cannot in our view be conducive to the successful operation of democratic Government in Scotland and Wales. Democracy does not work when minorities are permanently, or for long periods, excluded from a share in political power. That is what would happen in Scotland and Wales under the scheme of legislative devolution recommended in the Majority Report.
Thirdly, the scheme of legislative devolution recommended for Scotland and Wales will not in our view be acceptable to the people of England, and for this reason: the essence of the scheme is that the Westminster Parliament will not be able to legislate for Scotland and Wales in a wide variety of subjects, like health, education, housing, and so on. Under the scheme nearly one hundred Scottish and Welsh M.P.s sitting at Westminster would legislate for the people of England on these very matters which the people of England are debarred from legislating on for Scotland. I submit that that would hardly be acceptable to the people of England, and I feel sure that the people of Wales and Scotland would also regard it as unfair.
The final and basic objection to the scheme of legislative devolution for Scotland and Wales, it seems to Professor Peacock and myself, is in the proposed financial arrangements. The scheme recommended in the Majority Report is of an independent and nominated Exchequer Board to determine the distribution of the resources between England, Scotland and Wales. This would remove from the elected representatives of the people of England, Scotland and Wales, whether sitting here at Westminster or in Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, any control over perhaps the most crucial decisions democratic Governments are called upon to make—the allocation and distribution of resources. It cannot be conducive to a healthy democracy when the basic decision about the allocation of money is to be taken out of the hands of the people and their representatives by a nominated and independent Exchequer Board.
May I now devote a minute or two to commending to your Lordships the

1203
alternative proposals which Professor Peacock and myself make. The essential starting point of our recommendations is the diagnosis we make of what has been happening in the past fifty years or so in the evolution of our system of government. Here we reach the conclusion that there has been a decline this century in the extent to which we, as a people, govern ourselves, and we show that this is the unintended consequence of a number of trends in our system of government which are still continuing.
First, we draw attention to the enormous expansion and strengthening of the central Executive as it has assumed an ever-increasing range of responsibilities. This is perhaps best illustrated in the growth of the Central Government's Civil Service. In 1900 there were about 55.000 civil servants; to-day there are over half a million, often concentrated in giant Departments like the Department of the Environment with nearly 40,000 civil servants.
Alongside the growth and strengthening of the central Executive there has been a corresponding decline in the power of Parliament. Its staffing and procedures have quite simply failed to keep pace with the problems of controlling this vastly enlarged Executive with its vastly increased range of responsibilities. In fact, we spend less on the day-to-day running and servicing of Parliament than on the smallest Department of Government.
Then, thirdly, there has been a weakening of the other main arm of democracy besides Parliament—and here of course I am referring to local government. Since 1945, local authorities have lost their responsibilities for a wide range of public services, including hospitals, gas, electricity and so on. They are shortly to lose water, sewerage and what they had left of health. Under the new reorganisation of local government, to be effective from April 1 next year, the number of local government representatives is to be reduced from 37,510 to 23,950. We already have fewer elected representatives per head of the population in this country than, for example, in Western Germany, and if we go on at this rate we shall soon be at the bottom of the democratic league table in these matters.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. May I ask him whether he agrees with me that in the preface to Volume No. II, the Memorandum of Dissent, it is said by the noble Lord and his colleagues that they have interpreted the terms of reference of the Commission as meaning that they should consider what changes would be necessary in the system of government as a whole. I presume that "as a whole" means the whole of the United Kingdom, and therefore his argument in relation to the undesirability of devolution for Wales, for example, is completely vitiated by the first statement in his own preface.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood the purpose of what we were saying there. We were looking at the system of government as a whole, and by that we meant not the problem of devolution, but the working of Parliament, the working of political Parties and other organs in our system of government. I stress to the noble Lord that the Memorandum of Dissent recommends an important assembly and important devolved powers to Wales, and I shall come to that in a moment.
Many of the functions which have been taken away from local government have been given to nominated ad hoc authorities of various kinds—hospital boards, gas boards, electricity boards and so on. Indeed, one of the main institutional developments since 1945 has been the proliferation of a wide range of ad hoc authorities which, in the cause of managerial efficiency, operate without the detailed control of Parliament or local government. Often the effect has been to make the operation of these bodies largely independent of democratic supervision—certainly on their day-to-day impact in the life of the community.
The Minority Report argues that the general effect of these developments is that Government appears to be, and is. remote from the people of the United Kingdom so that popular dissatisfaction expresses itself in a number of ways—the nationalist movement in Scotland and Wales, where the demand is for independence, or some degree of independence, so that the people in those parts of the

1205
United Kingdom can govern themselves. Everywhere there is a growing "we/they" syndrome with an increasing recognition that "they" control "us", rather than that "we" control "them". Political Parties and elections appear to do nothing to redress the balance. Hence people are becoming increasingly alienated from the political process and there is a growing tendency to resort to direct action as the only means of achieving political change.
Quite simply, we believe the fact has to be faced that if we really believe that the people and their representatives should have a real share in political power, then our institutions do not make adequate provision for this to-day at a time when a more educated citizenry has a greater capacity for playing a fuller part in the country's decision-making processes than ever before in our history. Nothing was more disturbing than the evidence before the Commission of the widespread sense of powerlessness that people feel throughout the United Kingdom—or I should say in Great Britain, because we did not penetrate into Northern Ireland so far as we might have done in this respect—against the remoteness and omnipotence of Government.
It is against this general background. my Lords, that Professor Peacock and myself believe that the urgent and necessary reforms now needed in our system of government should have three main objectives. First, they should counter the decline that has taken place this century in the extent to which the British people govern themselves; second, they should reduce the present excessive burdens on the institutions of central Government; and, thirdly, they should provide adequate means for the redress of individual grievances. We believe that the evidence shows that it is just as important to achieve these objectives for the people in the different regions of England as for the people in Scotland and Wales. We believe, too, that the achievement of these objectives is the more urgent since they consider the constitutional and institutional consequences which the Common Market produces in our affairs. This makes it more urgent than it otherwise might be.
So, my Lords, we recommend a scheme of devolving powers to seven democratically elected Assemblies and Governments;
1206
one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for each of, say, five English Regions. Such Assemblies would have very substantial powers indeed. Their main responsibility would be to adjust the policies of the United Kingdom Government to the special needs of their respective areas. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the details of our scheme, except to say that it is set out in the Memorandum of Dissent. But I would make just two points about it. First, I should like to stress that the scheme would not take away any powers from local government, which local government now possesses. All these powers and functions of local government would be retained. The powers and functions that would come to these intermediate local governments, Provincial Governments and the Governments of Scotland and Wales, which we recommend, would all be taken away from central Government.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to deal with the criticism that the scheme recommended by Professor Peacock and myself would mean inserting another level of government in this country between the local authorities, on the one hand, and Whitehall and Westminster, on the other; and that there is no room for, or we do not want, such an additional tier. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Greenwood took this line, because this is not so. The fact of the matter is that we already have this intermediate level of government, this intermediate tier, between local governments, on the one hand, and Whitehall and Westminster and central Government, on the other. This intermediate tier that exists to-day consists of two sorts of organisations. The first sort of organisation is to be found in the outposts of central Government—for example, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, and the various regional outposts in the different parts of England. Indeed, two-thirds of our civil servants now work in, and make decisions in, these outposts of central Government in the different regions in the United Kingdom.
The other and second component of this intermediate level of government we already have comprises the regional organisations of the various nominated ad hoc authorities—the Health Boards, the new Regional Water Authorities and so on. So, my Lords, we already have this intermediate level of government,

1207
and it is not going to disappear, now or in the foreseeable future. The essence of our scheme is to accept the fact that we have this intermediate level of government, and therefore we propose to hive it off from Whitehall and put it under the authority of the elected representatives of the people in the areas concerned. It is simply a question of how one wants decisions to be taken at this intermediate level: whether by organisations largely staffed with civil servants remote from London and under no direct control, or by directly elected assemblies.
We believe that by implementing the proposals in the Minority Report, this devolution of functions from Whitehall and Westminster to democratically elected Assemblies in the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom, coupled with increasing the role of Parliament in policy making in both London and Brussels (this is another major recommendation we made in our Report, though I have not attempted to outline these points of our proposals to-day) power would gradually be returned to the people of this country and to their representatives. There will be much more opportunity and encouragement for all of us to help shape the decisions that affect our lives. Government will be more obviously based on the consent of the governed. If we wish to restore democracy in Britain, we believe that we can do no less than we propose. And, my Lords, we can do no more if we wish to maintain the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising this question, and I hope that he will accept my apologies if I do not stay until the end of the debate. I am very glad my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and others have expressed our full gratitude to Lord Kilbrandon in what must have been an extremely difficult Commission to chair. I feel, and I am sure we all feel, extremely grateful for the wide range of thought which he has given to us to-day. He told us that this is the first time that he has spoken in this House, and I am sure I can say—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The second time.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The second. But whether it is or not, we hope that his duties will not prevent him from speaking, in future, on the narrow range which is possible. My Lords, I have given, over many years, a great deal of thought to this problem. I feel a sense of sorrow that this Report should come at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has told us that we already have three forms of local government, starting with the parish. We have a government in Brussels, and I suppose one could add the United Nations. That is six. In point of fact, this gives seven levels of government. But even this I do not regard as the greatest objection at the present time. We have just formed three new Departments. We have formed three new forms of local government which will certainly take two years to settle down and it may be two years of chaos in the opinion of some people. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, we do not yet know exactly how we are going to handle our affairs with the E.E.C. I am afraid that in these circumstances it would be idle to think that this sort of thing could be introduced in any sense in the immediate future. If I may take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, made: if you had Strathclyde and Glasgow on a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, you would have a magnificent scene for a splendid battle. It is almost worth doing to see exactly what would happen.
My Lords, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord who has just spoken, and I am very grateful to him, because Lord Crowther-Hunt has explained much which I did not follow entirely in reading through his Report as best I could in the time available. I got the impression from reading the Dissenting Report that there are people in England who resent the idea that Scotland is a nation at all. I accept readily that it is a wholly subjective question: it is subjective in England, it is subjective in Scotland. But you would find in Scotland a surprising unanimity of that subjective judgment. There are certain resentments in indigenous institutions. They say that the easiest way is just to pay the brute and you will not have any trouble from him.

1209
My Lords, what I am really concerned with is the figures of unemployment, set out at page 138. As long as I can remember, and as long as I have had anything to do with this subject, which is nearly forty years, the figures of unemployment in Scotland have been almost continuously double those of South-East England. This is the fundamental problem which I am trying to address myself to and, frankly, by which I judge these things. Is this going to help that problem or is it not? The problems of government of Scotland for 350 years have never been wholly harmonized with the form of government which we have had in this country. Scotland proceeded by quite different methods. I will not go into the matter, but they were very different. I greatly admire the way the English have had certain features we have not had in Scotland. Take, for instance, the Office of Secretary of State. He is not appointed in Scotland. He is not dismissed in Scotland. He is not responsible to anyone in Scotland. He is a miracle, in many ways, of pragmatic achievement. I think it is a wonderful thing and it goes extremely well on the whole, but theoretically it is extraordinarily difficult to have any justification for the form in which you have one man, who is a Party man and who is supposed to speak for the whole country. I make no criticism of the officers who hold this position. They have a very difficult task indeed and they have given their lives and a tremendous vigour to it.
The most remarkable figure in the whole of this Report which the noble Lord referred to was that over 50 per cent. of the people of Scotland either did not know or had never heard of the Scottish Office. This is a revealing factor, which we must remember is not exclusively concerned with the Scottish Office but is concerned with a range of subjects which we think are very familiar but of which many people are almost completely ignorant.
A great deal is said in the Report about subsidising Scotland. I must make some reference to the substantial hidden subsidies which come to London and to South-East England. First of all, you have these big offices, with all the high salaries of course. You have what may be called the higher wage bracket, which
1210
is highly concentrated in a comparatively small area. You have London allowances. These are financial aids to greater congestion which are necessary. Whether they are desirable long-term or not is another matter. Take Maplin; take the Channel Tunnel; take the Concorde; take the Victoria or the Strand Line. These are all inuring to a great extent to this part of the country. I do not say they are bad ideas, but this is where the benefits come, and this is where undoubtedly an enhancement of the economic situation lies. I have always held that we must maintain a strong common economic unit. I am sure that to do otherwise would be the greatest possible mistake. But what I want to see is a wider release of the human resources throughout the length and breadth of this country; and this we have not got. Whether we can get it by other methods, I am not so sure.
The main point that seems to come out of the whole of this Report is the restoration of confidence in democratic processes. That is the main point which comes right through it and which I find it extremely difficult to give a clear answer to. One thinks of the all-pervasive yet remote State caught up in a machine—what I used to call the hatred of the unknown signature. It is a curious fact but one comes to dislike the signature of someone one has never seen. This is perhaps the first Report on the Constitution; it is not the first Report on centralisation. The Montagu Barlow Report over forty years ago dealt with this question, and no one took the slightest notice of it. One interesting sideline of this is a Report under a distinguished judge which says that the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse no longer applies. Many of us may have been aware of this, but we have the authority to say that an entirely different situation has arisen. Though it is not mentioned in the Report, there is the Ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner, who has been invented to deal with the highly technical problems which modern government has evolved. It is no reflection on Members of Parliament, to my mind, that the Ombudsman is necessary, because the problems are intensely technical. There is a tremendous range of tribunals to take judgments of one kind or another.

1211
I do not, however, believe that the multiplication of assemblies is going to resolve this problem, especially without financial responsibility. This problem is going to be extremely difficult to resolve. I am very divided on this. On the one hand, I am sure that democracy means government by consent. That means that you subordinate your own favourite idea to what the country will take. It may be your idea of what the best Government is, but you subordinate that to what the country will take. That was the big mistake of Dr. Allende in Chile; he did not have enough sense to compromise in what he did there. I say, on the other side, what the late Lord Lindsay of Birker used constantly to say: the real danger of democracy is weakness. This is where democracies have failed—because they have been weak; not because they have been too strong. We have always to bear in mind that unless strength is maintained there is very considerable danger.
As I see it, the complexity of the organisation has raised its own problem and no one is absolutely sure how to solve it. I think there are three principles which it is essential to maintain. One is to know who makes the decision. The trouble about assemblies is that the responsibility is moved from an individual to a committee. I am very much against that. I like the system, even if it is a little notional, of individual responsibility for all that happens. Secondly, a knowledge of how to approach whoever makes the decision; and thirdly, how to turn him out. These are to my mind the essential qualities which all systems need, and the mere meeting of assemblies and discussion, to my mind, play a slightly moderate part.
We speak about what is a justified sense of disquiet. We are living in a time when there is a wide range of subjects which can make people very disquieted. Take the element of change. It is probably true, as has been said, that a man in full span of life to-day has seen more changes than took place between Julius Caesar and the death of Queen Victoria. That is probably no exaggeration, and the effect of this on the human being is very considerable indeed. It gives him a great sene of disquiet. Secondly, we have inflation.
1212
Whatever the economic evils are, it gives great personal unhappiness to many people in their different spheres of life. Then we have the revolution of rising expectation. How easy it is to make a speech about building 500,000 houses, and how difficult it is to produce them when it really comes to the point! We have a constant and unbroken flow of unpleasant information from China to Peru, poured on us day by day. It is not very good psychology, and it is difficult to know what is a justified sense of complaint and what is not. There is probably no country in the world more accustomed than ours to what is called recrimination between political Parties, but I wonder whether the public are beginning to believe there is something in it. The other day a very distinguished politician from the other place raised the rhetorical question: "Are politicians self-seeking liars?" I am not going to say they are, my Lords, but I am not sure that there are not quite a number of people who think they are. I believe we may be reaching a stage when we have to watch a little how far these things go. And we have the new doctrine of selecting those laws which we think worth while obeying.
I wonder whether we are not, in our difficulties, putting too much weight on mechanism, and not realising that it is a human question we are dealing with. I think of James Barrie, if I may misquote him, in saying: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies in ourselves, and not in our Constitution, that we are underlings." We have a Constitution of immense adaptability. As Lord Kilbrandon said, changes are made according to the manners and customs of the nation. We have long experience. We have a first-class Civil Service of very high standard, and few Ministers could do their job for a minute without them. May I say also that politics is a relatively respectable profession, and that is not true in a large number of countries I have been to. Anyone who asks an American Ambassador what he thinks of a Senatorial visit will get some idea of the kind of situation to which I am referring. For those who are interested, in the eyes of many people to-day we are a very advanced Socialist country. That is the view held by, I should say, at least half the population of the world to-day.

1213
I am going to suggest one thing. One of our failures, I think, is local government. More open local government and more confidence in and knowledge of what local government can do would be of enormous assistance. But nothing really takes the place of regard for those who hold responsibility, for people with what I might call nobility of heart. If they fill that role, then I think democracy will be held in respect. And finally, my Lords, may I say just this. We ought to have a better conceit of ourselves as a nation. We are forever running down our own institutions, and I believe almost wholly without justification.
5.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, not only for the presentation of an important document but also for the quiet eloquence and, if I may say so, modest way in which he spoke to his Report this afternoon. It is the second occasion on which I have had the opportunity and the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on the Kilbrandon Report. The last occasion was the day following the publication of the Report; appropriately enough the discussion was held in the heart of the Scottish Highlands, at Aviemore. We are indebted, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for the passionate way in which he presented his particular contribution to this debate. I think that this House is extremely fortunate in having this advice available in the discussion of this important Constitutional matter. I must apologise to both noble Lords if any contribution which I make this afternoon does not do justice to the important information and advice which they have put at our disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, as he modestly says, does not present solutions, but he certainly opens the debate. An analysis of the advice offered by members of the Kilbrandon Commission indicates the complexities of the issues with which they were confronted. I think it was the Economist the other week which made an analysis of the attitudes and recommendations of the members of the Commission. They pointed out that eight members of the Commission wanted legislative devolution for Scotland, six wanted legislative devolution for Wales,
1214
two wanted executive devolution for Scotland and Wales, three wanted directly-elected Welsh advisory councils, one wanted the same for Scotland, two wanted executive devolution for English regions and eight wanted regional co-ordinating and advisory councils.
I think the wide variation of the advice offered by members of the Commission highlights the complexity of the task that they were set to solve. It is important, when looking at the Report, to cast our minds back to the conditions in which this Commission was set up. There was a sudden apparent upsurge of Scottish and Welsh nationalism and perhaps the Kilbrandon Report is being debated more actively to-day, at least in Scotland, following the sensational result of the Govan election. But I would suggest to politicians who are placing to much emphasis on that particular result in terms of a nationalist uprising, that there were a lot of other factors in that situation which would cause us to place less importance on the event as evidence of growth of a nationalist movement. As the last Election in 1970 indicated that support for the nationalist movement in Scotland and in Wales was in substantially the same proportion—about 11 per cent. of the people wanted and voted for the Scottish Nationalist—we should not overestimate the strength of Nationalist feeling.
Of course, it is quite obvious from the attitudes that emerge from the questioning undertaken by the Commission that there is considerable dissatisfaction with Government. There are many reasons for this.
suppose that one of the major reasons is simply the attitude of people towards big organisations as such. In Scotland it is particularly true that with so much of our traditional Scottish business moving South of the border, with the coming of multi-national businesses in our manufacturing, there is resentment and alienation about big businesses and big organisations over which we have no control. This resentment expresses itself not only in political terms; we are against big Government organisations just as we do not feel well disposed to large industrial complexes. I regret to say that even the large Scottish owned business over which I presided for some years has now passed under English ownership. This to me is unfortunate. This is part of the problem.

1215
A business that was owned by a million people in Scotland shall suddenly pass—
LORD PEDDIE: May I interrupt my noble friend? The Scottish business was not taken over by an English organisation; it was put into joint control by both the Scottish and the English.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: It is a nice point but I will not pursue it. But at least in terms of Scottish control it seems to have moved its headquarters from Glasgow to Manchester. However, I mention this as an indication that there is a kind of reaction of people in Scotland against this process, which seems to be inevitable in the nature of our economic development. This reflects itself also in attitudes to Government, but I do not think it should be interpreted necessarily as a demand for self-government in Scotland. If I may offer some criticism of the Kilbrandon Report, it might be that perhaps they suffered a little from having too few politicians on the Commission. There were two distinguished politicians on the Commission, Sir Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Douglas Houghton, both of whom retired before the publication of the Report. It appears to me, on reading through it, that it is a very interesting exercise in constitution-making. It is a broad-ranging review of Constitutions on a world basis by people who are experts in this field, academically if you like and I do not say that in any disparaging sense.
Some of the political implications of the Report were not fully appreciated. Perhaps it is a fallacy in the thinking of the Report that once you reduce the size of the particular political unit that inevitably this creates greater involvement and greater participation. A study of the statistics of the Wheatley Report on local government, on which the reform of local government was based, indicated that with very small political units you frequently got 10, 12, 13 and 15 per cent. participation in local elections, so it does not inevitably follow that you simply reduce the political unit and this brings a greater involvement of the local population. For example, in Gorbals in the City of Glasgow with their immense social problems, it is not uncommon to get a 12 per cent. electorate participating in the elections. Reference has been
1216
made to the fact that few people, perhaps half the population of Scotland, did not know of the Scottish Office and the other half had only a hazy idea as to its purpose. It is an indication that what is necessary is not only a long term Constitutional review which we are considering to-day but immediately a greater emphasis on political education and civics in our schools and educational establishments. This is important for the future of democracy.
Reference has also been made in this debate to the Scottish Assembly—and may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, that when I arrived in Edinburgh on the night that his Report was published, the headlines in the newspapers as I made my way to the hotel, read, "Scotland to get a Prime Minister" and there was great speculation as to who he might be. The mere fact that we create, say, a Scottish Prime Minister and we create a Scottish Assembly could easily make the democratic system less effective. People will believe in democracy if it is seen to be reasonably efficient, and to inject this additional tier into the levels of government does not necessarily mean that it will make it more efficient. Indeed, it may give rise to a greater bureaucracy and even a greater frustration. It has already been pointed out that with the European Parliament, with Westminster, the Scottish Assembly, regional government, district government and community councils the population will be asked to participate (if the European elections were to go ahead) in no fewer than six different levels of government. I visit Switzerland frequently and it seems to me that almost every second Sunday they have an election on something. If you multiply the number of elections in which people can participate there may in fact be a disenchantment with the process rather than a greater sense of involvement and participation.
I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, has said that the fact that there is a new local government setup does not mean that you should deny the right to the Assembly, or ignore the effect of the Assembly: but in fact in Scotland, by the very nature of the structure, you have local government in the West region with two million people; you have over half the population already in that area, which is the important industrial area, and to superimpose a

1217
Scottish Assembly between that and Westminster appears to me to be unnecessary.
The other matter that concerns me is the possibility of tension between the Scottish Assembly and the central Government. When we look at the financial arrangements we find it says in the Report that some attempt will be made to ensure that the financial arrangements of the Assembly are broadly consistent with the national objectives of the national Budget. It is an interesting fact nowadays that where there is a political conflict between local authorities and the central Government and the local authorities are of a different political persuasion from the central Government, there has been quite a good deal of tension, particularly in the operation of the Housing Finance Act. I just try to visualise the kind of situation which might arise in an inevitably Labour dominated Scottish Assembly—and presumably it is not to be a rubber stamp; it must have some authority—pursuing certain lines of social policy, whereas there is a central Westminster Government dominated perhaps by the Conservative Party who are pursuing an entirely different social policy. That kind of situation may not enhance the idea of democratic government but could in fact give rise to considerable tensions which would perhaps make democracy less effective.
The other point is that inevitably if there is an Assembly with more power alt the periphery, you have no right to demand more Members of Parliament at the centre. If you are going to take more power up to Scotland or to Wales, I think the Kilbrandon Report is right in saying that this should result in a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster. That is not a proposition which commends itself to me and it will not commend itself to the other House, because it inevitably upsets the political balance at Westminster. So this is a solution that may not be wise and may not be acceptable.
While I have offered these one or two criticisms of the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, I should like, as I said at the outset, to pay tribute to him and to his Commission for opening this important debate. I believe that what we have to do is not to look at this particular problem of Welsh and Scottish
1218
self-government but to look at the whole problem of the efficiency of Parliament as such. I do not think that Parliament is an effective instrument of democratic government. There is a good deal of thinking to be done about the whole operations of Parliament, so that Parliament itself could command more respect. If we pay attention to that, particularly to-day, when Parliament and the democratic processes are being challenged, and address ourselves to making the Parliamentary system more effective without confining ourselves to the specific aspect of the Kilbrandon Report, I think we shall do well.
5.46 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said about the distance of big business from the small man, and particularly his revelation about how his own Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society was taken over or moved down, but in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said about the concentration with Concorde, Maplin and the Tunnel, all of which are more or less in the south-east of England, I think we in Scotland should be happy that the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society stopped at Manchester and did not go further South.
I wish to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on his Report. It is quite obvious that he had a difficult team to drive, and all the more credit to him for having come through alive. What I like about his Report is that his conclusions are non-dogmatic. They are there for discussion and they can be picked up at a future date without any feeling that we are disagreeing with the Report. I think it will not be held up as gospel and he does not attempt to present it in that way. It is in fact an excellent basis for discussion, and I hope the Government will go ahead with the preparation of a Green Paper. However, even more fervently do I hope that they will not be in any hurry to go ahead with the preparation of a Green Paper. As other speakers have said, there are so many things to be taken into consideration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, himself said that this was a matter for evolution and I strongly support that view. We must not attempt to rush it. There are at least two major

1219
factors which must be taken into consideration before we could move forward with any action at all on the Kilbrandon Report. One has been spoken of quite a lot, namely, our new local government structures, and until we have seen them working I think it would be quite stupid to try to draw any conclusions, and get to the stage of a White Paper, as to what action should be taken.
The other factor is the E.E.C. There seems to be some dispute about the E.E.C. taking away sovereignty. I can understand its taking away sovereignty from Westminster, but I think there is a function for a form of devolution in order to get the administration of the E.E.C. Regulations, which will be multitudinous, in a humane and understanding manner, so that people can follow them. There, again, we have to see what is going to come out of the E.E.C. so that we can adjust any form of devolution to meet their requirements. But by suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that they should go slow in any action on the main issues of the Kilbrandon Report, I do not imply that they should in any way put the brake on in giving the Scottish Office more power. There are still things which could easily be devolved to the Scottish Office by the Government, particularly from the Department of Trade and Industry, so that we could have a greater say in the management of our own economic affairs. When we try to start up an industry in Scotland we have to refer to London. I am not quite sure that that is altogether right. When we have to consider the closing down of something, the Department of Trade and Industry have to be consulted. I think greater powers can now be given to the Scottish Office in this respect.
Again, with the development of oil there has been some devolution on the oil front to Scotland, but I do not think it has been enough as yet. My noble friend Lord Polwarth is often referred to as "the Minister for Oil" in Scotland. Putting one Minister in charge of these developments has been a good thing, but I think Her Majesty's Government made a whale of a mistake in putting the oil office in London. Here was a chance. The industry was in Scotland; they could have put the oil office in Glasgow, near
1220
to Prestwick, which would have stifled a lot of the stupid nationalistic stuff that we hear of. This kind of thing ignores the sensible actions which are evolving in the country, and I hope that that matter will be looked at again. I apologise for my brevity and for not quoting a single word from the Kilbrandon Report.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, the early part of this debate was enlivened by the merry yapping of Pavlov's dogs, certainly from the speakers on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, struck the mellow tones on the gong of devolution, they leapt into the trough, nose, muzzle and forefeet as well, saying, "Goodie! Goodie! Liberals and Nationalists to eat to-day." It took the following two speakers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, to bring us back to what I think was our purpose on these Benches in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House to-day. That was to get a beginning to the sort of reasoned discussion of the problems which have been so ably examined for us by the Royal Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his predecessor, the late Lord Crowther; to get a discussion going on these matters so that we did not leave it too long before action followed and the needs of the situation began to be met.
My Lords, to me the interesting thing that has come out of this discussion is that nobody has really shaken the consensus that has come broadly out of the Reports, and broadly out of the discussion here; that is, that there is a need for some sort of devolution to Wales, and to Scotland. There is no doubt that the greatest benefit from the Report of Lord Kilbrandon's Commission has been to take the discussion on Home Rule for Scotland or Home Rule for Wales, devolution for Scotland and devolution for Wales, or whatever you like to call it, out of the music hall joke category and put it down as a subject for serious debate. There is no doubt that this is something that is greatly welcomed by all people concerned with the welfare of Scotland and of Wales. I am surprised that the Government, the

1221
Conservative Party and the Opposition should continue to try to pour scorn on this, and to hand out acid drops as liberally as they were handed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount settle his metaphors?
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I am using my metaphors one by one; I am not going to mix them. I have not got my Pavlov's dogs eating acid drops!
It seems to me that the first interesting thing to note is that the Kilbrandon Commission have been able to see through the usual criticism of Home Rule for Scotland—or Home Rule for Wales for that matter; that is to say, that devolution upon a Home Rule basis would produce the difficulties which have taken place in Northern Ireland. The Royal Commission have made it clear in the Report, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, made it clear in his speech to-day, that these difficulties are not difficulties inherent in the possession of a Parliament but arise from other causes. This was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. Therefore I think we must seriously consider how we are to give Home Rule to Scotland, devolution to Scotland, and to Wales, as quickly as we can.
It seems clear from the Report and from the debate that it is not necessary to wait until the problem of what is to happen in England has been separately solved. I can quite appreciate that from an English point of view perhaps there has not been the urgency to examine the methods by which the more remote areas could be benefited by devolution. There has not been the sense of identity in different parts of England that there has been in Scotland and in Wales to help to focus the need for devolution, and for a more personal form of government. Therefore I do not think that at this stage it is wise to go too deeply into what is required for England. We have to make people consider what will be needed for England. More discussion is needed for this type of constitutional problem.
But it is clear, I think, that we have come to the point at which we know that devolution of some sort is required for Scotland and Wales. I would welcome
1222
a move by Her Majesty's Government to carry out the pledge which they gave during the Election to provide legislation for some sort of an Assembly, because until we get institutions working I do not think we can see how they can best be made to work. Having made out the case for one, I think we should take the matter further, at least to the Green Paper stage, and perhaps even to the White Paper stage, and eventually—who knows?—to legislation. I do not think that this conflicts in any way with the progress towards a government of Europe.
We know that more and more of our sovereignty is going to be taken and given to a pooled sovereignty within Europe. The next area of debate, from a constitutional point of view, in which we shall have to take part—indeed, we are already in discussion—is how we are to secure a democratic basis for a European Parliament. One very sensible method of approach is to look at the size of the various Governments which can take part in a Parliament of Europe, and to ask oneself whether it is not desirable that the unit size of a European Parliament should be a unit of a size like Scotland or Denmark, rather than like France or Great Britain. Therefore, one might well continue one's thinking about this whole problem into what we are going to do about the democratisation of the European Parliament, and about really going into Europe and becoming members of that Community in the full political sense as well as in the economic sense.
This paradox has never seriously worried me. I do not think it need worry anybody, because it is a paradox that as you move through local government to national government, to international government, and finally towards the rule of law throughout the world, you must at one and the same time be moving some responsibilities and sovereignty upwards and some responsibilities and sovereignty downwards. There must be points at which sovereignty has to stop. You cannot go right on and say when we set up a Government for the world, in Tahiti or of the North Pole, or wherever we decide it shall be, that every little last legislative act is going to be carried out in the Parliament of the world for every single country in the world. I do not believe

1223
that is necessary and I do not believe it is desirable.
The same is absolutely true of what goes on in Europe. It is not going to be necessary for every single little legislative act that is going to affect the lives of people in Europe to be carried out at Strasbourg. In fact it will not be desirable for it to happen that way at all. It will be desirable for as many legislative acts as possible to happen as near as possible to the people they affect. Therefore, we have to look at our own house and put it in order in this respect.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Viscount forgive me for one moment? He has pursued a very interesting argument, but has he observed what has been taking place progressively over the last 100 years in the United States, the way in which the sovereignty which was with the States has been steadily and almost remorselessly removed to the central Government, the local governments retaining those things which do not involve essential sovereignty.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Indeed, my Lords, I have observed this. Another noble Lord who spoke earlier drew our attention to the same difficulty, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, also referred to it. It is an inherent difficulty of a two-Party system. I could argue that at great length, but I do not think I should attempt to do so in the time I hope to take up to-day.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: The night is yet young.
VISCOUNT THURSO: If the noble Lord would like it, I will go on a bit further. I feel strongly that this is something which is inherent in any system, wherever you draw your Parliamentary line. If you draw it at the level of Scotland and Wales and England, if you draw it at the level of Great Britain, if you draw it at the level of Strasbourg, if you draw it at the level of world government, you still have to solve this problem upon which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, placed his finger, the problem of the growing power of the Executive. This is a problem of procedures and not a problem of placement of responsibility. I think the problem
1224
of placement of responsibility is really what we are looking at in this Report rather than the problem of procedures.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Viscount whether he is not perhaps confusing the concept of sovereignty and the concept of functions? It seems to me that it is entirely possible to devolve functions at different levels; and, indeed, in principle they should be devolved to the lowest level at which they can be performed. But sovereignty is a concept of total power, and you cannot devolve a concept of total power over a certain area of activity down to a lower level when you are moving that concept to a higher level. You can have a situation in which the higher level will exercise its sovereignty in such a way that it enables the lower level a good deal of manoeuvre to adapt policies in that area to its own particular needs. But this is not a sharing of sovereignty.
VISCOUNT THURSO: With respect, my Lords, I believe this can be done. This is where at this stage, at my thirteenth minute, I will agree to differ from the noble Lord. I still feel, and we on these Benches certainly feel, that these are two separate problems which may indeed respond to different treatments. I would suggest one thought to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt; and that is that the suggestion of the Kilbrandon Report that proportional representation be adopted will be the best way to preserve democracy, and therefore curb the power of the Executive—a better way than by necessarily centralising the Government. This is one thing that is worth thinking about and talking about over a much longer time.
I have gone on much longer than I meant to do. I wanted at this stage to say that we on these Benches, and I as a representative of the Scottish Liberal Party—which is separate from the Welsh and the English Liberal Parties, as no doubt your Lordships all know—welcome this Report, in the first place for the way in which it brings a proper and reasoned discussion of these matters out into the open forum, and not as a sort of joke at the very tail end of the agenda. We welcome this Report for its suggestion that the time is already ripe for

1225
Scotland to have its own Parliament, its own Assembly. We think we would like to go further with Parliamentary devolution in Scotland, but let us take this first step at this stage. We welcome this debate for the opportunity it gives us of getting these matters out into open discussion as early as possible. I would only express our hope that the Government will find it possible before too long to produce some sort of statement of their intentions with regard to the Scottish Assembly, which formed part of their Manifesto when they were elected to power.
6.8 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I listened with interest to the points the noble Viscount made, and in the course of what I hope will not be too long a speech (because nearly everything has been said) I will answer one particular point which I think needs answering. In passing, may I say how much I enjoyed the excellent, cogent speech of my noble friend Lord Greenwood, who opened this debate for our Front Bench. It was a masterpiece of condensation and it was also pregnant with the realities of the world in which we are now living. If some lift their heads and wonder and smile at the word "pregnant", its connotation is absolutely accurate in regard to the speech, because we hope to give birth to reality when the Labour Movement discusses the Kilbrandon Report in relation to what is going on to-day. I cannot accept the charge that we have done nothing about it.
There is unanimous agreement, and the Welsh Labour Group have been meeting continuously, off and on, to discuss this Report since it came out. They are conducting a number of meetings throughout Wales—one was held by George Thomas the other day at the University of Aberystwyth—in an attempt to hold discussions at the grass roots about this problem. There is unanimous agreement in the Welsh Labour Group on their attitude to the various recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report. They welcome the establishment of an all-Wales elected Assembly, with real powers, as the best means of exercising closer democratic control over those distinctive features of Welsh life. In his pleasant and constructive speech, which demonstrated to all of us that he had read the Kilbrandon
1226
Report backwards and forwards, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, showed us, in his own inimitable way, that they are adopting this Report as part of Liberal policy. But let me say that Kilbrandon himself adopted some of our Reports as part of his policy in making this Report to the nation.
One thing we stand out about is that up to now the Group would oppose any reduction in the numbers or effectiveness of Welsh Members of Parliament at Westminster. I am the only Welshman who has spoken from this side of the House in this debate to-night. We would wish to conduct a series of consultative meeting, not just with Welsh Labour people, but right across the board throughout Wales, before we come to any ultimate conclusion. Before I pick up a few points of the debate, I should like to point out that in 1943 the Welsh Council of Labour unanimously agreed that we should create a Secretary of State for Wales. We did not just pay lip service in an effort to get the Welsh nation nearer to having its own legislative power. In 1954 we pressed for the appointment of a Minister with a seat in the Cabinet, and in 1964 Harold Wilson created the Welsh Office. Within a year the Welsh Council of Labour was thinking in terms of democratic accountability. All this takes us up to February, 1973, when Harold Wilson, speaking at Newcastle, said:
"Two things are needed. First to decentralise and to democratise more and more work presently undertaken by Central Government, either from Whitehall or through their own regional machinery, and second to create democratic regional authorities accountable to the people of the area they serve, to deal with those services for which existing local authorities are too small."
The Commission warn us that devolution will not be a cure for all faults in the system. I do not want to quote the Report, but it says that in so far as alleged remoteness from Government is concerned, this is not simply a matter of geography but a psychological gap between Government and the governed. Regional government might help, but the main remedy would have to be better communication. No matter how much we discuss this, if the communication system is bad then the old faults and criticisms can be revived.
The emphasis in Scotland was on economic considerations. I do not go along completely with the Plaid Cymru

1227
attitude at all. The emphasis in Wales is not just on economic considerations but associated with a desire to preserve the Welsh language and culture. Neither in Scotland nor in Wales has the Nationalist cause attracted anything like sufficient support to constitute a general vote for independence, but it has provided a means for people to register their feelings of national identity, and has focused attention on the desire for changes in the existing system of government. There was an excellent point running through the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made a gem of a speech, analysing the cocoon of problems that wraps around the Kilbrandon Report. And there is a cocoon of problems, my Lords, whichever Party get into power.
I do not want to go into the issue of the Welsh language and literature, but there is a different approach. Gaelic is not spoken so much now in the Western Isles or the North of Scotland, but oddly enough, in the main Welsh counties 65 per cent. of three-year-old children to-day speak Welsh. I do not want this arid emphasis that we must get a dichotomy between English-speaking, Scottish-speaking and Welsh-speaking people by over-emphasising the language, and I should not like that to creep into the building-up of a system of obtaining power in Government. Nevertheless, I like the phrase in the Kilbrandon Report about the psychological factors. The Celt and the Gael have a strange make-up. Despite what people may think, we are not always after arid economic progress; there is also something mystic in it. If I may misquote Shakespeare:

"We can often find tongues in trees,

Sermons in stones,

Books in the running brooks,

And God in everything."

We are a pantheistic race, despite our nonconformity. We have not the theocratic divisions of an island. but if you over-emphasise political differences you could create by political labels the same kind of struggle that we have seen in Europe, where there is the bitterness of scattered, prolific pepper-pot Parties.
I understand (which is more than Mr. Grimond seems to do) the single transferable vote. I do not go along completely with this. I know that we are an intelligent people, and I am quite
1228
sure that I have the support of all my good friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on this, when I say that it would not take us very long to understand the single transferable vote. But am I right in considering that when we come to discuss this in reality it may give disproportionate representation to groups of people who merely have grievances and wish to undermine, rather than build up, the Constitution?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the answer is, "No". That is why it is called proportional representation.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the trouble about proportional representation is that, if you have pepper-pot Parties, they can all make such a fuss that it becomes out of all proportion to their influence in society. That is the whole answer, as I see it. I am not being dogmatic about this. This is one of the problems that we have to face. I do not want to criticise the main proposals, but two of the eleven Members who signed the Majority Report considered that as a matter of principle there should be a more or less uniform system of government throughout Great Britain. It was thought that the eight regions of England would correspond with the present economic planning regions. The other nine members see no need for uniformity, and regard the division of responsibility proposed in the scheme as impracticable. They consider that the reorganisation of local government in England has left no room for directly elected regional authorities. The Minority Report, which I have taken the trouble to read, brings out the emphasis that in 1850 there were 50,000 civil servants and to-day we have half a million, and that we are now taking a lot of the voluntary effort out of local government. Consequently, in this exercise—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising this matter to-night—before we could come to any conclusion we should need a lead from the Government by way of a Green Paper which would consider these problems in depth.
My Lords, I have taken eleven minutes and I shall try not to be longer than thirteen or fourteen minutes in all. I do not want your Lordships to think treat I am monopolising the time of the

1229
House. I should have liked to deal with this excellent Minority Report. With my noble friend, I do not know that I like the idea of this House of Lords business, of bringing fellows up from the Regions into the House of Lords, unless we give this House more power than it has at the present moment—and I can never see the other place giving that power to the Lords. But if we were to change its nature and call its Members Senators, or some name like that, in the near or far-away future, that would be another problem. But that, I think, was only an idea that they clutched out of the sky in order to make a passing reference to the House of Lords, and I am going to eliminate that from what I consider to be a constructive and most useful Minority Report.
Paying my tribute, I thoroughly enjoyed the hard work done on the history of England, Scotland and Wales. I "mugged up" my history beautifully by reading the Report, and went back to the days when I used to play Owen Glendowed and the English, and rolled stones down the mountains. We did not play Cowboys and Indians in our Welsh valleys! But the real force of Welsh nationalism to-day is not in proportion to the need for the vote. When a man is hungry he does not ask for a ballot paper: he asks for a packet of seeds and a shovel to help him plant them. The real force of Welsh nationalism to-day is in proportion to the need for jobs, meals on plates (as somebody once said) and opportunity. And do not let us forget—"God save us from some people who have had education!" I suppose that I, too, am supposed to have had it. But it depends how it works. Education does nothing to determine the motivation of man unless it angers our young to-day and frustrates them by showing them the follies, the injustices and the corruptions of the world in growing detail.
Now let me ask my question. We had a lovely little discussion the other day, and I posed this question: By living in a cocoon of Welsh nationalism, what cosmetic surgery has the Kilbrandon Report to offer to change the ugly face of industrialism? Where do you begin? Being a Marxist—a Welsh Primitive Methodist Marxist—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes! Marx did for politics what Leibnitz and others did for the differential calculus. They showed how to measure things in movement. Marx taught how not to have a static view of history—and English education is full of static views of history. Nobody was taught that when King John and his boys appeared and the Saxons were signing the Magna Carta in 1215 the Khmer population of what we now call Vietnam—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Cambodia.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Cambodia and Vietnam; right from the borders of Afghanistan to New Guinea—had a high standard of civilisation. It is time we took the whole gamut of the world civilisation in this tiny, spinning spaceship we call the globe. If we over-emphasise nationalism in that kind of world, we are running our chariot to destruction.
My Lords, tempting as it is to say the other brilliant things that I have down on this piece of paper but that nobody is listening to, I think my promise to the House must be kept. I am grateful for the marvellous work put in by the Commission, and I am grateful to the noble Lord who raised this debate. But, quite seriously, at this juncture I think it is important for the Government themselves to get cracking and produce this Green Paper. I see no opportunity whatsoever in this Parliament of this Report being implemented.
6.25 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, it is a formidable task for me to follow the brilliant things which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has said, and I think it is possibly a pity that he did not go on and say some more brilliant things. But to be serious, my Lords, it is a formidable task for me to be the last Back-Bencher to speak in such a debate when there have been so many distinguished speeches. Personally, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for putting down this Motion, perhaps prematurely; but though the Report is fairly recent, the subject is not. It has been discussed for a number of years, and I think there is no harm in your Lordships' House discussing it. The speech with which I most

1231
agreed to-day was made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood. I suppose that perhaps I ought not to speak at all, because I agreed with every word he said, but I do have some points which I should like to put to your Lordships rather briefly.
I confess that I have not had time to read the Report—it is a very long Report, the result of a great deal of hard work—but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I confine my remarks mainly to Scotland. I think that quite a few speeches have been confined to Scotland. I cannot resist saying that it seems to me that the conclusions of the Report as they relate to Scotland are the answer to the Scottish Nationalist maiden's prayer. Indeed, I believe—and I think I am right in saying this—that the Scottish Nationalist Party welcomed the Report, as indeed they ought to, because without going too far I think it is the thin edge of the wedge. I think that if the recommendations of this Report as they relate to Scotland were to be implemented, there would be a real danger that the structure of the United Kingdom would collapse. I am not at all sure about Wales; I do not know Wales very well. But I am a Scot, I have lived most of my life in Scotland, and this is what I think.
The Report concludes that there should be a Scottish Assembly. Much is made—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, quite naturally said a great deal on it—about the Northern Irish experiment in devolution. I think the Report said, with justice, that it did not break down because of the troubles that we have had recently in Northern Ireland; it broke down for completely different reasons, and that as an experiment in devolution one could say that it worked. But, my Lords, in relation to Scotland I would say that the analogy of Northern Ireland is simply not on. For one thing, Ireland, compared with Scotland, is and always has been relatively ungovernable. All kinds of experiments have been tried over hundreds of years to try to make Ireland more governable. Stormont and the Irish Republic were merely the last experiment, and in fact on the Stormont side it has broken down. Also, the whole raison d'être of the Unionist Party which governed in Stormont was to remain inside the United Kingdom, so that in any clash between Stormont and Westminster
1232
the Stormont Government always took this fact into account. Indeed, albeit rather noisily, Stormont consented to die two years ago. I do not think that a Scottish Assembly would consent to die—not at all.
There is no deep division among the Scottish people. There are no divided loyalties. I think that the setting up of a Scottish Assembly might, tragically, create divided loyalties. In fact in the event of a clash between Edinburgh and Westminster it is likely that Scotland will come to the support of Edinburgh and bring about the conditions for the division and destruction of the United Kingdom—which is something that none of us wants. Even if we had, say, a Conservative Government here and a Labour Government in Edinburgh, I do not think the Conservative Government here, in the event of a clash between Whitehall and Edinburgh, could be sure that the conservatives in Edinburgh would rally to the support of the Party; they might rally to the support of their Labour colleagues and their fellow Scots. I dare to say, too, that once a Scottish Assembly is established it will be impossible to dissolve it and to send in a Mr. Whitelaw. The Assembly would just sit on and would have the support of the Scottish people in so doing.
For all these reasons, I think the possibility is that if we implemented the Report we should run ourselves into a very serious constitutional crisis in which the United Kingdom might or might not survive. It could be the forerunner of Scottish independence; and this is why the Scottish Nationalists, as I understand it, have welcomed the Report. At present the Parliament in Westminster is Scotland's Parliament as well as England's Parliament. There is no question that Scotland is not properly represented here. It seems to me to be well represented in this House—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out. From what I can make out, practically the whole of our Front Bench are Scottish. So I do not think that there is much ground for complaint on that score. If the Scottish people want things otherwise, they know whom to vote for. Now, I suppose, they could vote for the Liberals; but whether they vote for Liberals or for Scottish Nationalists is up to them. They know which Party will give them the

1233
Home Rule that they seek. I doubt whether either of the two main Parties will do so.
A great deal can be done in Scotland and Wales. I believe that much should be done which has not been done before; but I do not think that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would help. All these people—the civil servants and the Parliamentarians—would have to be paid, and they would contribute nothing directly to the national prosperity. I think that there is an immensely exciting future for Scotland if the opportunities are grasped, but I do not think that a Scottish Assembly is the way to go about it. A proliferation of politicians and civil servants will not extract the oil; they will not build the harbours; they will not grow the trees and the crops. I suppose that the politicians will drink the whisky, but I doubt whether they will have much part in producing it.
Finally, lest it be thought that I have criticised the Report too much, I must say that I have a great respect for the people who drew it up, and for their motives. It is merely that, unhappily, I disagree with their conclusions. I sometimes think, particularly now, that we in this country seem to have something of a death wish. I agree with the Report's conclusion that the United Kingdom should be preserved, but the Report seems to go ahead with further conclusions which can hardly be thought to help towards that end. I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his colleagues who drew up the Report would think it as ridiculous as I think it—and I have lived on the Border between England and Scotland—if there were a frontier between Dumfries and Carlisle. I would say seriously to Her Majesty's Government that if they were to implement this Report this is the sort of thing which could happen—although I do not think the Scottish people want it and I do not think the English people want it. Certainly the Scottish people in the Islands do not want it, for many of them do their shopping in Carlisle; and that would become rather awkward.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said, we have at present a pragmatic and illogical structure which passes for a Constitution. But it has stood the test of time better than almost any other
1234
Constitution in the world. We have only to look across the Channel art France, which has had four or five Constitutions in this century. The point is that these proposals, while purporting to be, and genuinely meant to be, reforming, are in fact revolutionary. By putting a Scottish or Welsh Assembly between the people of Scotland and Wales and their Parliament at Westminster we should in effect be increasing the remoteness of the centre of power from the people and dangerously weakening the whole structure of the United Kingdom. I apologise for going on for so long, and I should like to apologise also to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues who drew up the Report for my being perhaps too scathing; but I fear that I cannot draw any other conclusion.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord need not apologise for being too long. If we all managed as well as he did, and with as pleasant a manner, we should all get on a lot faster and better in this House. I am bound to say, as always, that it has been an interesting debate and that we are genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for bringing this matter forward. The fact that it has provided the opportunity for a rather unconvincing Liberal field day does not spoil the debate. I must confess that I also believe that the debate is not as relevant to our present troubles and discontents as some may have thought. The fact that it is too early to come to any final conclusion or actions does not diminish the importance of the debate or the value of the analysis conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his Commission. I do not think that we ought to twit the Royal Commission with the fact that there was so much disagreement. It is not the only Royal Commission on which there was a good deal of disagreement —as I am sure my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt will know, remembering an earlier Royal Commission of which he was a member—and I think it was clear from Lord Kilbrandon's own speech what an admirable, patient and clear-minded Chairman he must have been. It must have been very difficult to take over from someone like the late Lord Crowther at that particular time. I think that one the whole they were rather individualistic Royal Commissioners, not to mention

1235
Assistant Commissioners. It really called for a Judge to keep them in order; and this he seems to have managed to do.
Some very important conclusions come out of the analysis; namely, that separatist and federal solutions are not welcome to the majority of people in Scotland or Wales, or anywhere else; while devolution is, on the whole, welcome. The argument to some extent has gone on around the subject of devolution and the form it should take. Turning to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Thurso, I must admit that I was somewhat depressed. I had a vision of a Liberal-led Scotland and a Liberal-led Wales which (perish the thought!) were leaping into a boat—the Scottish one—fending off Pavlovian dogs, fuelled by North Sea oil and fed on acid drops. Is it not a pity that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not here now?
I am bound to say that not sufficient credit is given for the degree of devolution that has already taken place. I am anxious to avoid making Party points in a debate which I hope is running pretty freely, whatever the Liberals may do about this; but let us examine the progress that has been made. There is certainly no doubt that during the days of the Labour Government—and the present Government have continued the policy—the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office and the Secretaries of State were created. And even if 50 per cent. of the people in Scotland had never heard of the Scottish Office, I am jolly certain that many more had heard of Willie Ross. The vitality of Scottish and also of Welsh representation in Parliament and in the Government—it is reflected in the reports in Scottish and other newspapers—indicates that a great deal has been said and done on behalf of the welfare of those countries.
What bothered me, my Lords, and I shall attempt to some extent to arrive at a personal conclusion, was when the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, spoke about the difficulty—I accept this in respect of Scotland—of matters having to be referred to London; such as whether a factory should be closed, or something of that kind. It is equally important that London should be compelling, driving, cajoling and not merely bribing, but
1236
by negative controls—and sometimes in future it may be by positive controls—to get industry to go to Scotland and Wales. Although regional policy has been anything but completely successful, one wonders what would have happened had there not been that degree of regional policy in Whitehall. I certainly am making no pronouncement on behalf of my Party, but my impression is that any addition to administrative devolution would be popular. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has set out very clearly what are the views of the Labour M.P.s in Wales with regard to Wales.
What has been so valuable in this debate, and in the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and of my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt, who made as brilliant a speech as was his maiden speech (it must have been quite a job for Lord Kilbrandon in the Royal Commission, with Lord Crowther-Hunt ready to argue his point of view; but then judges are accustomed to that sort of thing) is that they have helped to clear one's mind on the question of federalism. I should like to ask this question of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I acknowledge the sincerity and consistency of his beliefs, but I take it that in putting forward what I believe to be the federal solution he will accept that this means the sharing of sovereignty, with all that that implies. Because that is a point of the greatest importance. We see great advantages in a unitary system of government at the present time, however badly it may be working for other reasons.
It may well be that in terms of the problems of government as such there are arguments for a degree of devolution. But the noble Lord will appreciate that this must mean a written Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament—I think it important to have that clear—and that the absolute power of Parliament within the constitutional practice of this country would be fettered. We have only to reflect on what acute problems this poses for modern States confronted by the sort of situations that modern States have to face. One can see it in Australia. Mr. Gough Whitlam is anxious to carry forward policies—it is not for me to comment on them—which seem to be the sort of policies that it is proper for any Government to

1237
carry forward. It could be a Labour or a Conservative Government who would do it in this country. But Mr. Whitlam is being held up because he cannot get either an Amendment to the Constitution, or a Referendum, or whatever is necessary to carry forward a policy which a central Government feels is essential, whether what it is seeking to do is popular or not. That seems to me one of the decisive arguments against the federal solution.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, criticised the Royal Commission as, I think he said, for not giving this subject enough attention. According to their Report—and again the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, gave an important new interpretation of certain of the matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—it emerged from the evidence that there was not a demand for a federal solution. We accept that there are demands of varying degrees for increased devolution, but these spring from the general discontent, some of which also rests in the United Kingdom. I think that, among other things, this debate has provided an opportunity, of which perhaps we have not taken advantage as fully as we should, to examine how well our Parliamentary and Government system is working. I would say to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches that at a time when we see a breakdown in Government institutions, not only in this country but also in other countries, and when there is a need to develop a new synthesis, we ought not to regard—I choose my words with care —the meeting of Scottish and Welsh aspirations, important as they are, as enough to meet the combined problems of the United Kingdom.
We have major problems in the United Kingdom, and this is where I find not only the analysis but also the logic of the Minority Report from the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and Professor Peacock, so extremely valuable. Instead of reacting to the pressures of what was said—I make no criticism in this of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon—they have attempted to think the matter through and to look at our national institutions of Government and Parliament. On the one hand we have people in this country saying that the Government are interfering too much; and on
1238
the other hand more and more they are expecting the Government to interfere. Even a Conservative Government, who came to Office with a philosophy which initially was against too much Government intervention, are being forced inevitably by events into a greater degree of management of the economy and also of the lives of our people. I am not saying this in Party political terms; I am stating the reality. That is something we have not yet faced.
I agree with those noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, that on the one hand we want to be careful not to throw away those institutions which are valuable. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in a delightful speech, said that we ought not to be ashamed either of our confidence in our institutions or of our people. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, who once said, I think it was in this House, that the British are apt to praise their institutions, which are often inept in modern circumstances, and to ignore their character, which he believed still remained superb. I hope that that is so. But I think that it is possible—because we have managed it in the past, and it is an obligation on us—to analyse clearly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, the type of problems facing modern Government and modern Parliament.
There have been suggestions that we ought to change our Constitution, perhaps have a fixed term for a Parliament, and remove the opportunity for the Prime Minister of the day to call an Election. I should be totally opposed to that. I think we have had enough examples of the dangers of such rigid arrangements. But the fact is that the time scales of the day—and here I express a personal opinion—are no longer appropriate. Governments have less and less freedom of action. If one takes, for good or ill, Concorde, it has been running through four Governments, each Government somehow or other being hoisted with the actions of the previous Government. I do not know how many industries have been affected in this way. It is the same with a weapons system, and the same with the system of education. Generations are involved. I wonder whether we ought not to have longer, rather than shorter, Parliaments, and I certainly

1239
would not have a fixed timetable. Furthermore, there are the complexities—the miles of computer print-out which are now the basis of the quantitive decisions; and the quantitive analysis of decision-making which is such an important part of decision-making both in Government and in industry, even though, luckily or unluckily, individual judgment in large areas which are not quantifiable remain.
My Lords, I increasingly wonder how far Parliament and a centralised Government can operate in the context of present day problems. For that reason, as one who is basically a centralist, who believes that central Government is probably more efficient and provides greater justice, I am reluctantly driven down the road of the conclusions to which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and others have come. In some way or other we need to free overworked Ministers and overworked Parliaments, fighting their Party political battles, sometimes doing really important things but sometimes achieving very little. To that extent, if devolution would meet the proper aspirations of the people and nations of our country, and was in their best interests, then I should be in favour of it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, pointed out, devolution to Scotland and Wales will not by itself contribute significantly to the lightening of the load on the Cabinet, the Government and the central Civil Service. I think, therefore, that in the consideration we give to this problem—where I think rightly we have to take into account the European dimension—we need to examine it in terms of machinery of government and the most efficient way of conducting the Government in this country.
Other countries have different systems. We know that the Swedes hive off a great deal of the executive work from the central machine to agencies and there are different systems of administrative law. All of this is relevant to this matter. The noble Lords, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Crowther-Hunt, both drew attention to the great importance of being able to meet individual grievances. Here again, machinery is capable of being devised. I agree with those two noble Lords: I hope we shall not rush
1240
too quickly into these solutions, however sympathetic and however right this may be. One accepts that the Scots and the Welsh are nations, although I am bound to say that the difference between Lancashire and Bournemouth is pretty considerable also, and between Yorkshire and Bournemouth—and my family are not only half Irish, but half Yorkshire, and Yorkshire is really England to a Yorkshireman. They also have distinctive views and distinctive complaints. There is this feeling of remoteness which again has been clearly brought out in both these Reports.
My Lords, this has been a valuable debate and I think it behoves all of us, including the Liberals, who have had a policy for many years—and I admit that some Liberal policies have been valid over a number of years—to consider this matter not just in terms of what is the short-term electoral advantage but with a view to trying to achieve the sort of synthesis which will provide better Government for all the people of the United Kingdom as well as satisfaction for those in Wales and Scotland.
6.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, those noble Lords, and I am sure they include all who have taken part in this debate, who have read through these two worthy and fairly large red books—and I count among that number certainly the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who has read it and learned much from it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who has not only learned from it but has cross-indexed it —will have been greatly helped by the two additional and, I suggest, most valuable commentaries on the work of the Royal Commission, first, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, in his speech, and secondly, the notable contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt. Indeed, if I say they are glosses, they are no light glosses; they are commentaries and additions to our knowledge and understanding of the way in which this Report has been prepared.
I must confess that I share slightly the reluctance indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to commend the approach of the Liberal Party. It was perhaps a type of propaganda at a stage where we should welcome a more considered view than merely a restatement of

1241
well-evidenced advice that was given to the Royal Commission. We are rather trying to take it on from the stage of what has been said by the Royal Commission. I, too, picked up Lord Thurso's remarks about the Pavlovian dogs. If we rush to drop into the trough, it is because the Liberal Party will insist on making themselves so tasty, and they get gobbled up, because it is customary to do so, even if in the long run those who have done it find the fare somewhat insubstantial and unsatisfying. That is rather the effect that the contribution of the Liberal Party has made on me this afternoon. Perhaps they will look at the subject rather more in the round and give us the benefit of considered thought on these two documents as a whole, rather than what they said to the Royal Commission in the first place.
On Northern Ireland, I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, gave his reason, with which I entirely agree, for not touching on this matter. I share his hopes and prayers for the success of the recent agreements. I, too, was glad that my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton agreed with at least that part of the Royal Commission's Report. Equally, when the voice of Northern Ireland came to be heard in the person of my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, I am sure neither the Opposition nor my Party in any way resented his views on the one-Party domination that might occur in either Scotland or Wales in certain circumstances. We value his advice, based on experience of what has happened in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, there have been criticisms of the Royal Commission. They have not necessarily all of them been expressed this afternoon, but they have been about since the publication of the Report. Some critics were inclined to make much of the differing views expressed by the Commission, but I think to-day's debate has put the Commission's lack of unanimity in its proper prospective, because, after all, the subject matter is avowedly political. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made this point in his opening speech; unashamedly he made it and I do not blame him. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, emphasised the political content of the subject matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was indeed again entirely
1242
political in his approach—and that is perfectly fair. Let us have no doubt that this is very political material and full of argument and conflict. So we are bound to have disagreements. But, faced with this situation, and realising that it was going to happen, it seems to me that the Royal Commission took a very sensible course. It separated so far as possible its detailed analysis of the problems, its examination of the alternative solutions, and then its own personal preferences.
The analysis seems to me (perhaps I should say analyses, because the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt added his own, rather different, one) to be very valuable. I do not think it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to suggest that the seeds of more serious dissatisfaction were not set out and looked at by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt. I have read Chapters 9 and 10 and they seem to me to embody a dissertation upon that matter. Again, it seems sensible to have the various solutions as well as the personal preferences all set out, because they may differ: one can analyse the solutions without necessarily agreeing with what is said about them. There is a choice.
I think it is quite clear from the main Report that the Royal Commission did regard these impartial analyses and the assessment of them as their main task. Now, at the close of this debate, we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, a little analysis of his own, together with a very perceptive comment, if I may say so, on the debate to-day. That again is valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, reminded us of the kaleidoscope of views, but I should think he probably agrees with what I have been saying; that it is no weakness but really a strength, because we have all this material to consider and all these choices before us which we can now properly weigh up. This can be only to the benefit of us all.
However, these were secondary things. The Commission's primary object was to provide us with a detailed and reliable set of materials for a constitutional debate—the broadest possible constitutional debate—in which the possibilities had been established on the footing that the final choice was bound to be a matter for the people and for Parliament. This is

1243
the great and lasting value of this Report. Now we shall have a practical discussion on the many ways in which power might or might not be transferred from the centre. Again, I should like to rebut any possible criticism about the size and length of this Report because that, too, in my view, would be a mistaken criticism. It has already been said in another place that many of the issues here are unavoidably complicated. There is so much to be said that it is important for the argument to be set out in full. Therefore I hope that nobody will continue with criticism that the Report is too fat. Certainly it is not difficult to read: I would certainly applaud its drafting and its readability.
We have had shades of opinion of all kinds as to what ought to happen. In the case of Wales there on the one hand was the view—the tentative view—put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, which did not altogether agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. In the case of Scotland we had my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in what I agreed was a very fine and perceptive speech, contrasted with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and again with those of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton. That is what this debate is for, and it is all to the good that we should have these contrasting views. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, the matter has, at any rate for most of us, departed from the realm of separatism or federalism—and I say this despite what the views of the Liberal Party may be. We are talking then about devolution in one form or another. It would be as well, I think, that we should consider for a moment the full implications of devolution.
My Lords, it is all too easy for the realities of it to get lost in a welter of ways and means and machinery, and perhaps it is for that reason that the emphasis that my noble friend Lord Selkirk put upon people rather than machinery was so valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, put it in a rather different way when he talked about the "mystic feeling of the Celtic people". I do not laugh at this, because I understand very well what he is talking about, and this is what the Commission referred to in terms of the passionate feeling and
1244
culture and "Welshness" of Wales. Again, this is referring to people, not machines; and that is what we are trying to deal with. We must find something which satisfies the people and does not just make neat analytical sense in terms of some fine legalistic constitution.
It is not surprising, then, that we find the members of the Commission themselves posing the question: how far is the general public prepared to accept that matters which are now decided at national level and subject to representation through Members of either House should in future be finally—and I stress "finally"—disposed of at regional level, with the inevitable consequence of more marked variations in standards between one region and another? The greater the regional discretion, the less guarantee there will be that citizens will be treated alike in all parts of the country, if that is what people want. This is what we must consider and find out. The Commission themselves say that the evidence on this issue is conflicting. It is one important issue that I hope will be clarified in the wider public debate which this House has started off to-day.
I was extremely pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, say that there is an almost continuous discussion in the Welsh Labour Party (or the Welsh Labour Group, I think it was) about all these issues. He also said that they hoped to canvass more opinions in Wales. I hope that this will happen as widely as possible in every part of the country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it is important to get the views of Yorkshire, Lancashire and East Anglia, just as much as to get those of Scotland or of Wales—or indeed, of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, in so far as they are involved. The Government have in any case announced that this is to be done.
People should appreciate that devolution could bring to one part of the country standards which in relation to a particular service might be higher or lower than those in other parts, and they should form a view as to whether or not that is what they want. Will devolution, in the terms of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, "restore confidence in the democratic system"? If so, which is the best form of devolution for the restoration of confidence? There is another question here:

1245
that of general democratic support, because well-intentioned schemes of devolution can be devised to provide for public participation in Government decisions nearer to places where people live, but in the case of each scheme of this sort one has to ask whether people really want it and will support it and make it work well—because participation works only to the extent that people participate.
I was interested in the figures relating to the Gorbals quoted by one noble Lord. The Royal Commission have wisely pointed out that devolution is not a cure for all the ills of Government and that regional government could be open to all criticisms—remoteness, secrecy, encroachment on freedom and so on—which are at present directed against the Central Government. The Report stresses the need for good communication between Government generally and the people and urges that special attention should be given to this. Provision for this, of course, must be built into any scheme on which we finally settle. These may sound rather nebulous matters and rather removed from the concrete schemes of one sort or another that seem to be the more obvious ones on which to concentrate, but they are in fact the heart of the problem; and without a solution on these I do not believe that any scheme is going to work.
So, my Lords, here we have the first of the various debates that I am sure will take place on this subject, on a Report for which I have already expressed the Government's gratitude and which has been welcomed by everybody. It will, I am sure, be used in schools. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, wants civics and politics more widely taught. I should have thought this Report would have been a valuable textbook for this purpose and very instructive to many people. And we have here the opportunity of endless shades of opinon to be expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, indicated the very delicate exercise of shades of opinion. In the course of his speech he was picking his path along the middle ground between partiality and impartiality. I remember a long time ago Lord Pethwick-Lawrence reminding us about the daily Prayer that opens the Proceedings of this House every day, and which yester-
1246
day's Proceedings reminded us we should never miss. In that Prayer we say we shall set aside all partial affections. I am happy on this occasion to have done so. I have been expressing no political views at all, and I have not been taking up any stance on behalf of the Government; rather I have been listening to the views of others, appreciating them and, I hope, absorbing them. I promise to pass them on and make sure that they are properly studied.
In due course the Government will make known their views. My noble friends Lord O'Neill and Lord Balerno asked for some proposals; other noble Lords have asked for a Green Paper. There has been a slight difference in the timescale; some have asked that it should be done very soon, others have asked that it should be done slowly. However, we have promised that our views will be made known. That I reiterate now, and nothing will be more helpful than if noble Lords, whether it be in this Chamber on another occasion or in the communities from which they come, whether it is Scotland, Wales, or anywhere else, can continue the discussions about the merits of these documents, persuade people to study them and talk about them; and persuade people, if they would be so kind, to communicate their views to the Government. We are ready to receive them; we should like to receive them. This is a consultative exercise which we believe works well on the basis of what has happened on other subjects. I therefore leave it at that, with the thanks of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this debate, and in the hope that it will roll on with increasing fervour and increasing expressions of views from all sides.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that the total cost of the Report is £4.65p? Would he consider, in view of its educative value, producing an edition of the Report for schools at a more reasonable price?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a point which arises in Government publications from time to time and has almost never been resolved. I shall certainly pass on what my noble friend says, but I cannot guarantee that there will be any simple answer.
7.12 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, as I said in rising to move this Motion, I thought that we ought to have a preliminary discussion on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. If the Parliamentary Welsh Group can be in Session continuously on and off I do not see why—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I did not use that word. There is a complete difference between the word, "continuously" and the word "continually". I used the word, "continually" which means on and off.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me afterwards how one applies cosmetic surgery to the face of industrial capitalism within a cocoon of Welsh Nationalism.
My Lords, this debate has shown that it was not too premature. We have had a number of extremely good speeches. If I have erred in leading the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, into producing what he himself called a scathing attack on the conclusions of the Report, which he admitted he had not read, I am very sorry. One matter I should like to come back on is the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, when he implied that we were wasting time and should have been talking about more important and urgent things to-day. The Liberal Party has a real function, not least in your Lordships' House, to make certain that sometimes we talk about things which are long term rather than short term, and not particularly in the public eye as opposed to those which are. It seems to me that as a whole we talk a great deal too much—and I am now talking about the whole political scene—about those things to which harm has already come and about which a limited amount can be done, and not enough about those things where we can look ahead and see that harm does not come.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not disagreeing with him; what he is saying is consistent with the tradition of your Lordships' House and has been pursued by the Members of your Lordships' House who are not exclusively Members of the Liberal Party.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I accept that; but I reject the implication that just because we are in the middle of a crisis, which we discuss practically every day, we should turn away from the more long term matters. There are one or two minor points I should like to take up, if your Lordships will bear with me for a short time. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked about sovereignty. I confirm that I and my friends think that sovereignty has to be shared. Although I obviously have to sit at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, about the whole concept of sovereignty, I could not make out whether he was saying that sovereignty should not be shared or that it could not be shared. If he was saying that it could not be shared, in spite of the fact that in many countries it is, I wonder whether or not he meant that to be his definition of sovereignty.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, on the concept of sovereignty, where sovereignty is shared, for example in the United States, though the sharing becomes less and less effective over the years, you have in that country a concept basically of dual sovereignty: the States of the United States are sovereign in certain matters and the Federal Government in the United States is sovereign in several other matters. That is not a shared sovereignty at one level of government, it is sovereignty in certain things and at another level sovereignty in other things. The concept behind what the noble Lord was suggesting seemed to be that in matters in which sovereignty was moving upwards it could also be moving downwards.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point and I see that I should have phrased what I was saying rather differently. However, the point of what I was saying still remains.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He is on a very interesting point. I find it difficult to see how this could be done within the concept of sovereignty here. I suspect that we would need a Constitutional Conference. The essence of sharing sovereignty is that there must be some entrenchment, and the one lesson we have

1249
learned is the almost total impossibility of entrenching anything, including the Act of Union.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I take that point and entirely accept that there would have to be a Constitutional Conference and that we should have to have some kind of Written Constitution. But that does not mean that it is impossible to achieve. The fact that there are, not shared sovereignties, but dual sovereignties in a number of countries in the world—and when you get different layers like Europe there may even be triple and quaruple ones—means they do not necessarily disappear and they are not necessarily a disaster.
There was one gun in the Liberal armoury which I thought I would spare your Lordships in my first speech, but which I should like to mention now since it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine; that is, proportional representation. I am not going to take that further, except to say that one of the answers to people who talk about the difficulties of Northern Ireland is, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, said, proportional representation. One of the answers to the fears of political Parties, as to what happens if there is legislative devolution, could be proportional representation both in the individual countries themselves and for the federal Parliament.
We must all be extremely grateful—we have all said this, but there is no harm in saying it again—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his Commission. If there is one matter that has run through this debate to-day, and has split the House down the middle —right across Parties—it is the division between those who say they take the pragmatic approach and those who say it may be illogical. But it works and develops. The question is: how well does it work compared with what, and what might work better? Now we have the Kilbrandon Commission Report. There is the division of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made, I thought, a particularly brilliant speech on the pragmatic side, and that of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who made a speech
1250
on what I would call the radical side. You can mark off the speaker's list depending on what side they took in that philosophical approach to the Government and the Constitution. What the Kilbrandon Commission have done is that they have given us some ammunition so that those of us who want to ask questions—how well does it work compared to what, and what else could be put in its place—have quite a lot to talk about and to consider. The only serious criticism I have of the Kilbrandon Commission is that I thought they had not put before us the alternatives of whether or not there was any demand.
There is one point I should like to refute before I finally sit down; that is the idea that the Liberal Party has put its evidence before the Commission, has seen the Report come out, and has blinkeredly merely continued with exactly its views as before. It is true that this can be accounted for in this particular way. It is true that we put our evidence before the Commission; it is true that our views are very much the same as they were before. But, my Lords, we are older in the history of this. The poor people on the Kilbrandon Commission, they only had 4½ years: we have been talking about this for forty years. We have considered all these various things —they have even been in our policy from time to time. In the end, we came out with something more radical—and everyone must admit that it is more radical, even if they think it is wrong—than anything any member of the Kilbrandon Commission accepted. That is our position. Not that we have not read it—we have. Not that we have not learned a lot from it—we have learned a lot from it. But in the last resort Kilbrandon has moved quite a number of people two-thirds of the way to what I would consider, and what some of my noble friends would consider, to be the right position, which, my Lords, I hope you will all reach some day. On that cheerful and optimistic note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

VETERINARY SURGEONS IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
7.23 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is being done about the acute shortage of veterinary surgeons in the Government service. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question refers to "the acute shortage of veterinary surgeons in the Government service". I have quite deliberately used the word "acute". I should make it clear that I am applying this to the field service only and am not including the research and investigation staff, where at present the shortage is not acute.
My Lords, I understand that the field service has an establishment of 451 veterinary officers. There are in post a total of 372. That makes a shortage of 80. That is not the worst. Of the 372 employed, only 51 are under 40 years of age. The State is not recruiting new veterinary surgeons at a rate anything like sufficient to make up the wastage. There are but four of them under 30 years of age, and that implies a recruitment rate from the colleges of less than one per annum. During the next 10 years, no fewer than 120 will have reached the age of 65. If we exclude the administrators, and such like, and concentrate only on the number actually in the field, the situation is really alarming. There are but 227 of them, out of the complement of 330. That is a shortage of 33 per cent. of veterinary surgeons in the field. There is, therefore, to my mind, nothing in the way of reserves to deal with the emergencies that are indubitably coming—foot-and-mouth, vesicular disease, rabies, perhaps, which we have been discussing in recent times.
Apart from the representations made by the profession itself, there have been, during the last 20 years, no lack of warnings to each successive Government. Three Government Committees have stressed the implications of this shortage. There was Gowers in 1954, Plant in 1962, and Northumberland in 1968. Presently a Government Committee under Sir Michael Swann is, among other things, investigating this aspect of the profession. I question whether in this important matter we can afford to wait for this Report and then wait another year or so
1252
for the Government to consider it and decide what action to take. Furthermore, the Ministry has estimated that entry into the E.E.C. will call for an additional 100 field veterinary officers in the basic grades. The Government will also require a large number, which has been variously estimated at 500, of whom a significant proportion must be full-time officers. The widespread dissatisfaction with the State Veterinary Service will certainly result in some serving veterinary officers being attracted into local government and the E.E.C. employment, thus weakening still further the position.
My Lords, it is my view that criticism of any Government should be as constructive as possible: and I therefore make a few suggestions. I will take pay first, to get it out of the way, as I appreciate Phase 3 difficulties. For over 15 years the level of pay in this Service has been very unsatisfactory; and for five years it has been in serious dispute with the Treasury and the Civil Service Department. So presumably the Minister is fully aware of the position. I ask only two questions on this point. First, why is the pay of the State Veterinary Service linked to that of scientists in the Civil Service? Secondly, why is it so far below the State Medical Service and the earnings in private veterinary practice? Undoubtedly a major reason for young graduates shying off the State Service is its subordination to A.D.A.S. Senior veterinary staff are no longer in full control of the junior staff. Quite rightly, the new entrant to the profession resents the prospect of being controlled by a man who has had a far shorter course of training—and that in an entirely different discipline.
Another reason I will illustrate from the experience of a final year student. I take it from the Farmers Weekly. This is from an article inquiring why the young graduate will not go into the State Veterinary Service. One student had been out for a day with a Ministry veterinary officer as part of his compulsory training, and he said: "It was slow and I got the impression he wanted to get on with tending his garden." I should like most strongly to urge the Government to revert to the old situation where the Chief Veterinary Officer has direct access to his Minister—direct contact with his Minister. In fact, the whole Service, I think (and I

1253
believe that most veterinary surgeons take the same view), needs to be restructured so as to give the veterinary surgeon an opportunity to get ahead and to specialise. At the present moment he has not those incentives. This could be done by giving more opportunity for advisory work, and work especially in preventive medicine and in the problems of animal reproduction which are very acute and through the solution of which great economies can be made in production.
There is a point about cross-posting which takes place in the service as it is. It seems to be done with a certain lack of sympathy, and that is probably due to the postings being made by a non-veterinary surgeon. In the long term, it is fundamental that we ourselves produce more veterinary surgeons to meet this steadily increasing demand for the service that only they can render. I do not call for more veterinary schools, but I ask for an enlargement of the existing schools. I know that to some extent this has already taken place: in Liverpool, Bristol and Cambridge there have been proportionately substantial increases in the last few years. But the three big schools, in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, now each have an annual intake of 60 to 65; and I think the number could be stepped up a little above that. I feel sure that at this point somebody is going to ask: "Are there sufficient applicants to fill these places?" I can give your Lordships a very short answer to that. There are something like three candidates for each veterinary place each year in the universities despite the fact that the standard for entry to the veterinary school is now higher than that for entry to the medical school.
My Lords, the people of this country are inclined to regard the veterinary profession as persons who treat sick animals and who have responsibility for controlling horrible foreign diseases that may break out in this country. In fact, of course, they do much more. The contribution which the veterinary profession make to human health is of equal importance. They safeguard all the animal-produced food which we eat. Of all the home-produced food which we eat, I believe that over 70 per cent.—at any rate, around 70 per cent.—consists of animal products. Doubtless the Minister could give a more up-to-date figure. In
1254
one form or another disease takes considerable toll of that production, and most of this disease is preventable. There is urgent need to get a move on with preventive veterinary medicine. While the 2,000 veterinary surgeons in private practice will undoubtedly co-operate, a comprehensive scheme requires the wider responsibility of the State veterinary surgeon. As things are, the State is quite unable to provide this; and there is no prospect that it will. Yet the saving of loss to the livestock industry can be reckoned in millions of pounds.
7.34 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, for raising this matter to-night. It is not only of vital interest to the farming community but, as I hope to prove, of vital interest to the general public. My interest in this matter is due to the fact that I recognise that still to have diseases which are animal-borne, which can be transmitted to the public, is so utterly stupid, when we know that the whole situation can be prevented. Yet here we are, in this nuclear age, tolerating conditions which are not tolerated in many countries in Europe and not tolerated even in Northern Ireland. I am referring of course to the disease of brucellosis. So much of it is related to the fact that the Veterinary Service is grossly inefficient, chiefly because it is lacking in numbers.
On Monday I asked a Question concerning the slow progress of the eradication of brucellosis in relation to the under-staffed conditions of the Veterinary Service. I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whom I am sure we are all pleased to see here to-night, thought that I was overstating the case. I have refreshed my memory of the statement that the President of the British Veterinary Association made on the B.B.C. on December 23, on "Farming To-day". I should like to read it and leave the House to decide whether indeed I have not understated the case. Mr. Campbell MacKellar, the President of the Association, said:
"The State Veterinary Service is so understaffed that any major outbreak of epidemic disease this winter would stretch it to and perhaps beyond its breaking point. The British Veterinary Association feels that the public should be aware of the risks being run, of the

1255
inefficiencies being accepted, and of the likelihood of disaster with its implications to public health, animal welfare and the economic consequences to livestock and the nation as a whole."
He went on to say:
"At present there is a shortage of about 30 per cent. in the veterinary officer grade in the State service—the man in the field—and less than a quarter of the veterinary staff is under 45 years old. This is not a new situation. It has been worsening steadily for twenty years, but the Government appear impervious to warnings."
After that, I hope my very mild supplementary questions on Monday will be regarded really as not putting the case in its proper light; in fact, I certainly failed to emphasise the important aspects of this problem as the President of the B.V.A. did in his remarks.
I am not a farmer; I am a doctor who feels strongly about this subject on the health aspects. But the House must have been impressed also on Monday with the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. He is a farmer and never fails to remind me of the subject when I read his long, long letters. He farms on a very large scale, and in a supplementary on Monday he said:
"for six years now we have been stressing the importance of keeping the veterinary medical service at a high level — during those six years practically nothing has been done".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/12/73, col. 870.]
During these years—even during the six years—students could have been qualified and the problem resolved. We are told that the majority of veterinarians are over 45, and everybody knows that many of these are not in the best of health. I remember that, again on Monday, Lord Mar rose and reminded the House that many vets suffer from brucellosis—a disease associated with varied symptoms but which invariably saps the energy of the unfortunate victim. It is all very well for somebody from the Ministry to go around and see a vet and think: "He looks all right"; but if one has a recurrent disease which saps one's energy one cannot be efficient.
It is clear that the Veterinary Service is in urgent need of new recruits; and this is the crux of the situation. Therefore, I was astonished to learn, again from a supplementary question of mine on Monday, that the Department, after
1256
all these wasted years, were advertising, of course with little success, for vets. As I said this, I was surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, greeted my remarks as though they were very fresh ideas in answer to an old problem. I said that when you want students for any profession you do not advertise, you go to the schools and get them from the sixth forms; and as the President of the Veterinary Association has said, twenty years have gone by. Students could have been qualified and these problems need not have arisen.
Just before I came in I was handed a letter (I am sure he will not mind my quoting him) from Sir William Weipers, of the University of Glasgow Veterinary School. I understand that it is a very good veterinary school, and noble Lords will understand why I take great pleasure in reading this letter to the House. He said:
"In Glasgow we have gradually worked up to a figure over the last 20 years of a female intake of from 10, 15, 20 up to 50 per cent., and this year we exceeded 50 per cent., no doubt due to the fact that in accepting equal criteria for men and women, we were getting a larger share of women because the other schools did not accept equal criteria."
I hope noble Lords appreciate what that means. Other schools were adopting the approach adopted in medical schools; they demand that the women have higher academic standing than the poor boys before they accept them. In Glasgow this very enlightened man has realised that this problem could be solved if women were encouraged to go in. As we know, and as I have said on so many occasions, the Civil Service has always discriminated against women, and I cannot imagine anybody in the Ministry of Agriculture saying, in these twenty wasted years, "What about getting women vets?". I welcome the fact that in Glasgow here is a huge pool of brilliant girls accepted as vets.
It seems amazing that this is not done. We see girls on television loving animals, loving horses, loving dogs. Their maternal instinct attracts them to animals, yet the Civil Service say, "Over our dead body; no women in our Departments; no women in the veterinary services; no women in the medical schools". And in consequence we are short of doctors, we are short of vets, we are short of brilliant, able people in

1257
every Department of the State. I must admit that when this letter was handed to me—and I have seen it only to-night —I rejoiced in saying that we have at least one highly intelligent man in the University of Glasgow Veterinary School.
The National Farmers' Union—and I do not think the National Farmers' Union have ever supported my political Party; we have always regarded them as a very right-wing organisation—are extremely concerned at the present position. An efficient young farmer of my acquaintance asked me to obtain the answers to three questions which I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to answer with great ease. They are quite simple: (1) can the Minister deny that the designation of further compulsory brucellosis eradication areas has been deferred because of shortage of qualified veterinary staff in the Government's service? (2) If there were a foot-and-mouth outbreak approaching the scale of the outbreak in 1967–68, would the Ministry have resources available to deal with it adequately? (3) Are the Government satisfied with the rate of recruitment of qualified young veterinary staff, in view of the age distribution of the present State veterinary force?
My Lords, these are very simple questions, and it seems very shocking that they have to be asked by farmers these days. All I want to say is that, looking at the whole picture and in the light of the revelation of the President of the British Veterinary Association concerning veterinary surgeons, it would seem that while European countries, and even Northern Ireland, have eradicated brucellosis, Britain has lagged behind through sheer inefficiency.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to say that I think no further comment is necessary by myself.
7.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Earl please comment for me on this aspect of the shortage of Ministry vets, which I certainly did not realise was so serious until I listened to what other noble Lords have said to-day? There is a limited importation every year of certain Continental beef breeds, above all, Charolais. I have no interest to declare, and I am not trying to sell
1258
Charolais or other such beasts to anybody here, but at the Smithfield Show the Champion beast was a Charolais cross. I am told that at the Guildford fat stock show earlier this week the majority of the cattle shown were Charolais crosses, as was the show champion. The reason, I believe, is very simple: the weight gain qualities and the good configuration of this breed.
I saw in France that Charolais bull beef were putting on 3 lb. a day light weight gain on May sileage. The consequence of this limited importation is that good Charolais heifer costs anything from £2,500 to £4,000, or ten or fifteen times the price of a good native breed cattle. If the shortage of imports or inability to import any more is contributed to by the shortage of Ministry vets, and the shortage of quarantine stations, it seems to me totally unnecessary that this cannot be put right. Would not the noble Earl consider increasing the number of these quarantine stations, because this should bring down the price of beef and consequently mitigate in some very small way the inflation that we already have with us on this tiny aspect of it?
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Earl before he comes to reply? When we debated the Export of Live Animals Bill I think it was reported at the time that there was a serious shortage of veterinary officers and that in fact the few who were offering were unable to give a satisfactory service at the ports. Could he tell us whether these riding establishments are being inspected, as envisaged in the Bill? Can he also confirm what my noble friend Lady Summerskill said: that women are not being recruited, although they are acting as assistant vets all over the country?
7.49 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my noble friend for putting down this Question, and although only a few noble Lords have taken part, and the House is now fairly thin, I regard this as a very serious subject and I regard the speeches made by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend as very serious, too. Indeed, the whole question touches on a matter to which my right honourable friend the

1259
Minister of Agriculture and his Department have been giving a great deal of attention.
For several years now the recruitment of veterinary staff has not kept pace with wastage from retirement and other causes. I accept that at the outset. There are at present some 90 vacancies among professional grades in the veterinary arm of the Ministries Agricultural Development and Advisory Service as against an authorised strength of 656. The difficulties of recruitment have been felt mainly in the field service, as my noble friend said, as distinct from the veterinary investigation in the laboratory services. The shortfall has not been continuous or constant. In fact there have been marked fluctuations. At present—and here I think I disagree with my noble friend only on a matter of figures—there are 64 vacancies, whereas I think my noble friend said that there are 80 for the field staff on the present complement of 451.
I am bound to comment that the shortage of field staff is offset to some extent by the employment of some 60 veterinary surgeons as temporary veterinary inspectors on a daily fee-paid basis. I am sure my noble friend is aware that veterinary surgeons in private practice play a very important role as fee-paid local veterinary inspectors under the direction of the Ministry veterinary officers. But I should tell my noble friend straight away that my right honourable friend is most anxious to see a significant strengthening of his full-time staff. In recent years, various measures have been adopted to make employment in the State Veterinary Service more attractive to good quality recruits from the veterinary profession. For example, steps have been taken to improve the level of starting pay; to speed up advancement above the basic grade and to permit entry above that level; and in order to encourage prospective young recruits, the requirement that basic grade recruits should have at least one year's outside experience has been abolished. But even so, unfortunately these steps have not achieved the desired results.
The situation has been made more acute by the new demands which are made on the Service. In the early 1960s, the field service staff were engaged mainly on work associated with notifiable diseases such as Newcastle disease in poultry, tuberculosis,
1260
swine fever, anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease. But of course the situation has changed, and indeed the whole livestock industry and its requirements have changed in the last ten years. An increased involvement with public health work has demanded greater diversification of veterinary officers' duties and in addition there are specialist services in such areas of work as meat hygiene, artificial insemination and health schemes. With the successful completion of an eradication programme such as swine fever and tuberculosis, the Veterinary Service has now turned its attention to the pressing and more complex problems of diseases such as brucellosis and salmonella. These diseases by their very nature require much more professional skill and action on the farm than, for example, bovine tuberculosis, and they make great demands on the veterinary officer.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is it really necessary to go through all this? Have we not been told, over and over again, that the Ministry are doing everything they can to forward the brucellosis eradication scheme?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is desirable to go through it again, because the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that the Ministry are doing everything they can to forward the scheme, whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said that in fact the Ministry were dragging their feet in regard to the scheme. I am trying to draw the picture as it is and then try to explain exactly how it is proposed to tackle it.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, was really being a little facetious. He was indicating that although the Ministry say they are doing everything possible, in fact they are doing nothing.
EARL FERRERS: Well, my Lords, I shall hope to tell the noble Baroness that we are doing something, but I hope she will also give me the credit for acknowledging the fact—the point that she and my noble friend have both made—that there is a difficulty here and that the Government acknowledge it. I really think it is not quite fair to say that the Government are doing nothing. I have tried to give an account of the situation

1261
as I see it. My noble friend and the noble Baroness have said that we do not have the staff and have asked what we are going to do about it. Let me say from the outset that these heavy demands on the State Veterinary Service are such that my right honourable friend is anxious to see the Service strengthened. Your Lordships will probably know that the Civil Service Commission regularly invite applications from veterinary surgeons for posts in the Ministry. Because of the unbalanced age structure of the field service, to which my noble friend referred, the Ministry are keen to attract young veterinarians to the Service. The Civil Service Commission maintain contact with the veterinary colleges and regularly send them the relevant recruitment information. The noble Baroness said that that is the place from which to get recruits. That is perfectly true: the Ministry go to the veterinary colleges and inform them of what is available in the Ministry but they cannot force students who have graduated to go into the Service as opposed to any other of the outside professions.
On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asked a supplementary question following the Question asked by the noble Baroness, and he said that the Government propose to cut down the existing six veterinary, schools to four. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no such proposal at the present time. The present output from these colleges is 240 a year, and my noble friend will, I think, be glad to Know that the University Grants Committee's current quinquennial settlement did not envisage a reduction in the number of veterinary students. On the contrary, the universities proposed a moderate increase in the numbers and the University Grants Committee's allocations should make this possible. The Departmental Committee of Inquiry into recruitment for the veterinary profession, which reported in 1964 (the Northumberland Committee) considered that the rate of admissions to veterinary colleges at that time could be regarded as adequate to provide the number of veterinary surgeons likely to be required over the next 10 years up to 1974, but of course we all recognise that conditions have altered.
In 1971, the Government appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the veterinary
1262
profession under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Swann, to consider and report on the future role and educational need of the profession in the United Kingdom. This Report should be available by about the middle of next year. The appointment of this Committee recognised the fact that the time had come to carry out a wide-ranging review of veterinary work in the foreseeable future. Their terms of reference cover all aspects of the profession's activities, including the likely demand for veterinarians and the suitability of veterinary training.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in 1962 the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers started bringing pressure to bear on the Ministry for a brucellosis eradication scheme? Is he also aware that in 1965 they gave up further efforts through lack of interest and that in that year the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers started a scheme of their own? In 1967, the Ministry took over that scheme, and those who had already gone a considerable distance along the road towards eradication were told that they must go back and start with everybody else. Those are facts for which I can vouch.
EARL FERRERS: I do not see that to go back into past history is particularly helpful. I would only say (because I know the noble Lord is concerned with brucellosis) that he will I think readily accept the fact that we have now got something like half the herds of the country in the Brucellosis Scheme and, I think I am right in saying, 56 per cent. of the animals. That is a major achievement, and although I accept entirely that progress may not be as rapid as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would like, at least there is some progress. As I told the noble Baroness the other day, we expect the final end to the Brucellosis Scheme to come within the next decade, which was the target set when the scheme first came into operation.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Earl give way for one minute? He has not answered Lady Summerskill's question about the recruitment of women. It is very odd that I should find myself in total agreement with her, but on this particular occasion I do.

1263
The noble Earl has not commented on the questions that she raised. Could he do so?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the noble Earl would be kind enough to be patient I shall try to answer all three questions of the noble Baroness, plus the question that my noble friend put. But if I am continually interrupted, quite obviously I shall not answer any questions.
My Lords, my noble friend referred to the question of pay, and he quite rightly referred to it because this is germane to the question of recruitment. I would wish to give my noble friend a public answer. The veterinary officers' pay scales have for some years been linked with, and moved in step with, those of the scientist group of the Civil Service. The present rates of pay result from an award of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, which operated with effect from January 1, 1971, subsequently enhanced by a central Civil Service pay settlement from January 1, 1972, and a further increase from April 1, 1973 under Stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy. Currently, the minimum of the scale for the basic grade for veterinary officers, Grade 2, is £2,445, although of 61 new entrants in the last five years only three have started on the minimum of the Grade 2 scale; 40 started on benefits above the Grade 2 minimum, 13 of them actually at the maximum, which is £3,095. A further 18 were recruited direct to Grade 1, for which the starting pay is now £3,095. The present average salary of all officers in Grades 1 and 2 is £3,524, and there is opportunity for promotion to higher posts, with scales rising to £5,200 and upwards.
My noble friend asked why the pay of veterinary officers is linked with the pay of scientists. The answer is that some 13 years ago, the pay of the veterinary staff was tied to that of scientists because the staff association, which is the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, wanted it; and this arrangement was agreed to by the Civil Service Department. The basis on which the pay of the Civil Service scientists generally, and not solely veterinary staff, should be determined has been referred to the Pay Board for consideration, and their report is expected early in 1974. Discussions will take place between the
1264
Civil Service Department and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants concerning the salaries of veterinary surgeons, and these will have regard to the Pay Board's recommendations and the counter-inflation policy. I am sure your Lordships will understand that it is not possible for me to attempt to predict the outcome of these discussions.
An attempt was made some years ago to establish comparison between the earnings of the veterinary surgeons engaged in private practice and those engaged in public service. This has proved impracticable for a number of reasons, because veterinary surgeons who are partners in private practices receive emoluments which include such things as cars, houses and other non-cash benefits. Because of these difficulties, and the relatively small number of people involved—there are only a few hundred—it was decided, in agreement with the staff association, that the most satisfactory arrangement would be for veterinary officers' pay movements to keep in step with those of the much larger scientific Civil Service. It was not thought proper to establish pay linkage with the medical officers in the Civil Service, whose duties are of a somewhat different nature. I would add that in the past year the Ministry, in collaboration with the staff association which represents veterinary officers, has undertaken an intensive study of a whole range of factors affecting the attractiveness of a career to a veterinary officer. The conclusions of this study are now being considered, and in consultation with the Civil Service Department and the staff association concerned my right honourable friend has also had recently the benefit of the views of the British Veterinary Association. Proposals are being discussed relating to the structure and management of the Service, the nature of the duties undertaken by veterinary officers, and the opportunities for advancement in the Service.
My noble friend referred to the fact that the demands of the European Economic Community would require 100 extra veterinary staff. Member States of the E.E.C. tend to make greater use of veterinary officers for control purposes than we do. As a result of membership of the Community, therefore, we must expect that greater demands will be

1265
made on Government veterinarians. There are such things as Draft Regulations and Directives, which are currently under discussion, dealing with milk and meat products. These could result in increased demands upon the Government veterinary services, but at the moment it is too early to assess the extent of the demands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill made quite a point in her speech of the fact that women were not called upon to be veterinarians. She asked why we did not take advantage of having women in the Veterinary Service. I can assure her that there is no sex discrimination in the Civil Service examinations held for veterinary surgeons, and that women can sit them in the same way as men and, by suitably passing them, can be accepted by the Ministry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in order to prove his point, would the noble Earl give the figure of the percentage of women in the Veterinary Service in England?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness's point was that we had not drawn women to the Service, and that there was some discrimination.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords I want the noble Earl to prove that what he said is correct by telling me what is the percentage of women in the Service.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I cannot, without notice, tell the noble Baroness that. But I shall certainly do my best to find out what the figure is. With respect to the noble Baroness I suggest that the whole premise on which she based her argument was erroneous, in that she said we did not draw on women, and that there was discrimination against the use of women as veterinary officers. This is not so. If women sit the test and pass it, they are acceptable to the Service.
BARONES SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps the noble Earl has a number of advisers sitting behind him, although I do not see a woman there. But surely one of them could tell him what is the percentage of women in the Service. Can he also tell us—and it is a very important point that I made with regard to the veterinary school in Glasgow—the answer to this question: is the entry to the Ser-
1266
vice for men and women the same, or does a woman have to have a higher academic standard? It was pointed out that in Glasgow both boys and girls (and I call them that because they are young when they go in) have the same academic standards. I should like an answer to these two questions: what is the percentage of women accepted, and do they require the same academic standards?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will see that the noble Baroness is apprised of these figures. She did not give me notice that she was going to refer to Glasgow or Cambridge—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is a debate.
EARL FERRERS: Of course, it is, but the noble Baroness can hardly expect me to carry in my head every figure about every single recruitment study for students sitting for Veterinary Service examinations. I will certainly give her the answer later, but she did not tell me that she was going to refer specifically to Glasgow, as opposed to London, Cambridge or anywhere else. But I could find out the information.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, could we all be given the answer?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will give the noble Baroness the answer. I said that I have not the answer with me because I was not aware that I was going to be asked specifically that question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is on the desk.
EARL FERRERS: I have the answer here. There are ten women and 440 men.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Which proves my point.
EARL FERRERS: It depends, of course. I do not think there is any point in labouring it. It does not really prove the noble Baroness's point at all, because it does not take into account the number of women who presented themselves to competition.
The noble Baroness asked me whether the designation of new brucellosis areas was being put back because of lack of veterinary surgeons. I can tell her that diseases which are of prime importance, outbreaks such as foot-and-mouth diseases and swine vesicular disease, are

1267
obviously bound to take the first call on veterinary staffs' time. Where this has happened—and it has happened in the case of swine vesicular disease—effort has had to be transferred from the brucellosis scheme to dealing with that, and that has been one of the reasons for the delay in the starting up of the eradication areas in the East of England.
If the noble Baroness asks whether I can give an assurance that if there is a foot-and-mouth outbreak we should have adequate resources, I can only again refer her to the fact that the demands on the veterinary staff are bound to go first of all to trying to eradicate diseases of a special nature like that; and if that happens, of course other services are bound to suffer. That is of the nature of the Veterinary Service. When she asks whether we are satisfied with the rate of recruitment, I hope she will take it from me that we are not satisfied with the rate of recruitment; we should like to see more. I have tried to explain what measures we are taking to ensure that this comes about. But if she asks are we satisfied the answer is, "No, we are not."
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me a specific question about Charolais coming into this country. All cattle coming into this country from outside the British Isles must be subject to strict animal health controls and quarantine. There are two quarantine stations, one at Lowestoft and one at Dunleath, and the number is limited to 200 animals all from one country every two months; that is to say, 1,200 animals a year. Veterinary supervision is by the Ministry's own full-time staff and I would accept that this is one of the constraints which could operate against increasing the amount of imports. Again, it is a question of proper allocation of the resources available. In allocating the 200 places, the Minister is advised by the Advisory Panel for Livestock Importation which was set up by the Agricultural Industry itself from the beginning of 1972. The number of Charolais imported have been 451, the last batch being in May of this year. I understand that up to 600 could have been imported and that no Charolais imports are under immediate consideration, as the Livestock Advisory Panel has recommended other breeds during the early part of 1974.
1268
I hope that I have been able to answer some of the questions which have been put by my noble friend and the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, asked me a specific question about riding schools. I will find out the answer and let him know.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, my other point was that when we debated the export of live animals, very serious questions were asked as to whether there were enough veterinary staff at the ports to inspect these animals when loading on the boats. There were all sorts of complaints and allegations of cruelty. Can the noble Earl give an assurance that the staff is now adequate to cope with this task?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my understanding is that the staff is adequate, but in view of the noble Lord's interest I will follow this up and make sure that this is so. I have tried to answer the questions, but I rather doubt whether I have satisfied the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You have not.
EARL FERRERS: I hope I might have satisfied my noble friend. But if I have not satisfied either of them, I hope I have satisfied them on one point and that is that we are in total agreement that it is essential that we have a good Veterinary Service, and it is essential that some method is found of increasing the number of people coming into the Service. The noble Baroness and my noble friend will realise that this is a question of attracting people. We cannot just get them into the service by saying that we want more people. Indeed the whole of the veterinary service, as I know my noble friend will agree, has a record of which it can be justly proud. It has a tradition of professional integrity and dedication to the cause of animal health and welfare. We want to see that continue. We accept that there are problems and difficulties but I very much hope they are going to be overcome. I would only say to my noble friend that I am grateful to him for raising this matter, and I am grateful, oddly enough, to the noble Baroness. We do accept that this is a difficult problem, and we hope it will be overcome.
LORD BALERNO: May I give a small bouquet to the State Veterinary Service

1269
regarding swine vesicular disease. When that outbreak took place I was in contact with a very senior person in the United States Department of Agriculture, and he was full of admiration for the way the Service had identified the disease, the speed with which that had been done, and the great ability with which preventive measures were taken by the Ministry of Agriculture. He only wished he could feel that his own Department would have reacted as swiftly and as well.
EARL FERRERS: I am very grateful to my noble friend for having said that. I was not going to reply, but my noble friend the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard told me that I had to reply in order to put my noble friend in order.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
  PRIVATE BILLS PROCEDURE
  PRIVATE BILLS PROCEDURE
  GRENADA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
  GRENADA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE